On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:32:13AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 9/10/21 15:05, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > In the Bismon static source code analyzer on
> > https://github.com/bstarynk/bismon/ commit ad8b6270691e
> >
> > (funded by http://decoder-project.eu/ ....) which contains some GPLv3+ GCC
> > plugin code under directory gccplugins/
> >
> > I am getting when compiling it
> >
> >
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc: In function ‘int plugin_init(plugin_name_args*,
> > plugin_gcc_version*)’:
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc:165:85: warning: unquoted whitespace character
> > ‘\x0a’ in format [-Wformat-diag]
> > 165 | warning(UNKNOWN_LOCATION, "BISMON GCC10 METAPLUGIN: datestamp
> > difference for %s:\n"
> > | ^~~
> > 166 | " plugin has %s, GCC had %s; this is risky.",
> > | ~~
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc:169:84: warning: unquoted whitespace character
> > ‘\x0a’ in format [-Wformat-diag]
> > 169 | warning(UNKNOWN_LOCATION, "BISMON GCC10 METAPLUGIN: devphase
> > difference for %s:\n"
> > | ^~~
> > 170 | " plugin has %s, GCC had %s; this is risky.",
> > | ~~
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc:174:89: warning: unquoted whitespace character
> > ‘\x0a’ in format [-Wformat-diag]
> > 174 | warning(UNKNOWN_LOCATION, "BISMON GCC10 METAPLUGIN:
> > configuration difference for %s:\n"
> > | ^~~
> > 175 | " plugin has %s, GCC had %s; this is risky.",
> > | ~~
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc: In function ‘void parse_plugin_arguments(const
> > char*, plugin_name_args*)’:
> > gcc10_metaplugin_BMGCC.cc:405:53: warning: unquoted sequence of 2
> > consecutive space characters in format [-Wformat-diag]
> > 405 | inform (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, "Bismon plugin %qs (%s:%d) will
> > handle GCC include-file events with prefix %qs",
> > | ^~
> >
>
> The warning -Wformat-diag is internal GCC warning that hasn't been
> documented. I'm CC'ing the warning author.
Yeah. But the warning is correct, one shouldn't have \n in warning/error
etc. format strings, instead one can emit multiple warnings perhaps in a
warning group, or a warning followed by inform, in any case the follow-up
diagnostic should be done only if the first warning returned true.
Jakub
