Re: [PATCH 2/2] MdeModulePkg/UdfDxe: suppress incorrect compiler warning in ReadFile()

["Zeng, Star" <star.zeng@intel.com>]

Comparing adding workaround in code with suppressing it in *OLD* version GCCs, I prefer the latter personally.


Thanks,
Star
-----Original Message-----
From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Ard Biesheuvel
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 2:52 AM
To: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu.ni@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>; Gao, Liming <liming.gao@intel.com>; Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 2/2] MdeModulePkg/UdfDxe: suppress incorrect compiler warning in ReadFile()

On 13 September 2017 at 11:49, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/13/17 08:43, Zeng, Star wrote:
>> Beyond the Rb (I do not want to block this patch series), I am curious about one question.
>>
>> There may be more this kind of workarounds to fix the build failure.
>> Is it possible to disable the warning (like below example for VS) for specific version of GCC for this kind of false alarm?
>>
>>
>> ProcessorBind.h:
>> #if defined(_MSC_EXTENSIONS)
>>
>> ...
>>
>> #if _MSC_VER == 1800 || _MSC_VER == 1900
>>
>> //
>> // Disable these warnings for VS2013.
>> //
>>
>> //
>> // This warning is for potentially uninitialized local variable, and 
>> it may cause false // positive issues in VS2013 and VS2015 build // 
>> #pragma warning ( disable : 4701 )
>>
>> //
>> // This warning is for potentially uninitialized local pointer 
>> variable, and it may cause // false positive issues in VS2013 and 
>> VS2015 build // #pragma warning ( disable : 4703 )
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> #endif
>
> I think starting with gcc-4.6, gcc supports the "diagnostics" pragma, 
> which can be used to suppress warnings.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no pragma to suppress *only* the incorrect 
> warnings :) So if we set the pragma, we could lose even those warnings 
> that point out real bugs.
>

That applies to the VS case as well. But I think doing this for older GCCs is fine, most EDK2 developers use a newer version anyway, so we will not lose any coverage by doing so.
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel