On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:08:17PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote: > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:02:49AM -0800, David Herrmann wrote: > >> configure.ac | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> New commits: > >> commit 0a98d66159e474915afd6597d3aa444a698fdd2d > >> Author: David Herrmann <[email protected]> > >> Date: Tue Feb 24 15:59:06 2015 +0100 > >> > >> build: add -Wno-format-signedness > >> > >> gcc5 introduced this option (gcc4 silently ignores it, which is fine). > >> Given that gcc5 thinks 'unsigned char'/'unsigned short' is promoted to > >> 'int' for var-args, stuff like this spits out warnings: > >> uint8_t x; > >> printf("%" PRIu8", x); > >> > >> gcc5 promots 'x' to 'int', instead of 'unsigned int' and thus gets a > >> signedness-warnings as it expects an 'unsigned int'. > >> > >> glibc states otherwise: unsigneds are always promoted to 'unsigned > >> int'. > >> Until gcc and glibc figure this out, lets just ignore that warning > >> (which > >> is totally useless in its current form). > >> > >> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > >> index 9a2235b..22a6f17 100644 > >> --- a/configure.ac > >> +++ b/configure.ac > >> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ CC_CHECK_FLAGS_APPEND([with_cflags], [CFLAGS], [\ > >> -Wno-unused-parameter \ > >> -Wno-missing-field-initializers \ > >> -Wno-unused-result \ > >> + -Wno-format-signedness \ > > This doesn't really work, as discussed previously on the list. > > Why? Works fine with gcc4 and gcc5 here. What's the problem exactly? Positive version of the option must be used to detect reliably.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499 Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
