18 Jun
2009
18 Jun
'09
9:01 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Gerald Pfeifer<gerald(a)pfeifer.com> wrote:
I verified this does not cause any extra warnings with
GCC 4.4, whereas
GCC 4.5 will become quite a bit more useful in that regard and thus help
spot any issues.
As with -Wtype-limits that I suggested last year, I pledge to keep close
an eye on this and to address any issues proactively as part of my nightly
test builds.
Gerald
ChangeLog:
Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible.
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index bef311e..3f7a657 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -1385,8 +1385,9 @@ then
WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-builtin],[AC_SUBST(BUILTINFLAG,"-fno-builtin")])
WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-strict-aliasing])
WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wdeclaration-after-statement])
- WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
+ WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wlogical-op])
WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wtype-limits])
+ WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
dnl Check for noisy string.h
saved_CFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
Causes 106 more warnings on 4.3.3 of this sort:
tab.c:693: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
cert.c:1627: warning: logical ‘||’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
--
-Austin
19 Jun
19 Jun
2:34 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
2009/6/19 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Gerald
Pfeifer<gerald(a)pfeifer.com> wrote:
> I verified this does not cause any extra warnings with GCC 4.4, whereas
> GCC 4.5 will become quite a bit more useful in that regard and thus help
> spot any issues.
>
> As with -Wtype-limits that I suggested last year, I pledge to keep close
> an eye on this and to address any issues proactively as part of my nightly
> test builds.
>
> Gerald
>
> ChangeLog:
> Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible.
>
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index bef311e..3f7a657 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -1385,8 +1385,9 @@ then
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-builtin],[AC_SUBST(BUILTINFLAG,"-fno-builtin")])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-strict-aliasing])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wdeclaration-after-statement])
> - WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
> + WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wlogical-op])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wtype-limits])
> + WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
Is there a reason why -Wwrite-strings is moved?
4:23 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Ben Klein wrote:
Alphabetical sorting, now the list gets longer. :-)
Gerald
> diff --git
a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index bef311e..3f7a657 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -1385,8 +1385,9 @@ then
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-builtin],[AC_SUBST(BUILTINFLAG,"-fno-builtin")])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-fno-strict-aliasing])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wdeclaration-after-statement])
> - WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
> + WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wlogical-op])
> WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wtype-limits])
> + WINE_TRY_CFLAGS([-Wwrite-strings])
Is there a reason why -Wwrite-strings is
moved?
4:06 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Austin English wrote:
Causes 106 more warnings on 4.3.3 of this sort:
tab.c:693: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
cert.c:1627: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
This is strange. In that case, let's hold off and I will work on
addressing these first (testing with even more versions of GCC than
I had done).
Gerald
7:43 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Austin English wrote:
I have about 70 warnings with 4.3.2.
I already sent two patches and found a few more bugs. If you want I can
start sending in patches for those as well (don't want to duplicate work
of course).
--
Cheers,
Paul.
Causes 106 more warnings on 4.3.3 of this sort:
tab.c:693: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
cert.c:1627: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
This is strange. In that case, let's hold off and I will work on
addressing these first (testing with even more versions of GCC than
I had done).
Gerald
5:35 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Paul Vriens wrote:
I have about 70 warnings with 4.3.2.
I already sent two patches and found a few more bugs. If you want I can
start sending in patches for those as well (don't want to duplicate work
of course).
Thanks for checking to help avoid duplicate work, Paul; I really
appreciate that. Austin was kind enough to share his logs, and I
now submitted patches for (more or less) everything I had seen on
my side and could reproduce based on this input.
If you want to go for the rest you are seeing after those few patches
of mine, that would be great. If you could keep us updated on how it
goes (ideally bringing warnings down to zero, of course ;-) that would
be nice, too.
Happy hacking! :)
Gerald
23 Jun
23 Jun
5:32 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Gerald Pfeifer<gerald(a)pfeifer.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Paul Vriens wrote:
For those interested, here's the make log in Monday's git. 94 warnings for me.
--
-Austin
I have about 70 warnings with 4.3.2.
I already sent two patches and found a few more bugs. If you want I can
start sending in patches for those as well (don't want to duplicate work
of course).
Thanks for checking to help avoid duplicate work, Paul; I really
appreciate that. Austin was kind enough to share his logs, and I
now submitted patches for (more or less) everything I had seen on
my side and could reproduce based on this input.
If you want to go for the rest you are seeing after those few patches
of mine, that would be great. If you could keep us updated on how it
goes (ideally bringing warnings down to zero, of course ;-) that would
be nice, too.
Happy hacking! :)
Gerald
6:19 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
Austin English wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Gerald
Pfeifer<gerald(a)pfeifer.com> wrote:
Sent 3 patches based on your log.
I have less (55) warnings on 4.3.2 btw, but most look like false positives.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Paul Vriens wrote:
For those interested, here's the make log in Monday's git. 94 warnings for me.
I have about 70 warnings with 4.3.2.
I already sent two patches and found a few more bugs. If you want I can
start sending in patches for those as well (don't want to duplicate work
of course).
Thanks for checking to help avoid duplicate work, Paul; I really
appreciate that. Austin was kind enough to share his logs, and I
now submitted patches for (more or less) everything I had seen on
my side and could reproduce based on this input.
If you want to go for the rest you are seeing after those few patches
of mine, that would be great. If you could keep us updated on how it
goes (ideally bringing warnings down to zero, of course ;-) that would
be nice, too.
Happy hacking! :)
Gerald
3 Jan
3 Jan
10:13 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul Vriens wrote:
On my FreeBSD test system I am see no warnings triggered by -Wlogical-op
any more. How does it look on your side?
Depending on your findings, we may want to enable -Wlogical-op by default
and I'd submit a patch to that end.
Gerald
For those
interested, here's the make log in Monday's git. 94 warnings
for me.
Sent 3 patches based on your log.
I have less (55) warnings on 4.3.2 btw, but most look like false positives.
8:30 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald(a)pfeifer.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul Vriens wrote:
On my FreeBSD test system I am see no warnings triggered by -Wlogical-op
any more. How does it look on your side?
ole32:
usrmarshal.c:485: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1098: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1290: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
oleaut32:
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ‘||’ with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
comctl32/tests:
tab.c:520: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:540: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:563: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:978: warning: logical ‘&&’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
kernel32/tests:
atom.c:70: warning: logical ‘||’ with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
--
-Austin
For those
interested, here's the make log in Monday's git. 94 warnings
for me.
Sent 3 patches based on your log.
I have less (55) warnings on 4.3.2 btw, but most look like false positives.
9:12 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Austin English wrote:
I had a patch for this one (comctl32/tests) which I received feedback on
and need to brush up. I should be able to do so coming week. Anybody
volunteering to look into the other ones?
On my FreeBSD
test system I am see no warnings triggered by -Wlogical-op
any more. How does it look on your side?
ole32:
usrmarshal.c:485: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1098: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1290: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
oleaut32:
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
comctl32/tests:
tab.c:520: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:540: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:563: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:978: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true kernel32/tests:
atom.c:70: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
Gerald
4 Jan
4 Jan
2:06 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On 01/03/2010 10:12 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Austin English wrote:
I had a patch for this one (comctl32/tests) which I received feedback on
and need to brush up. I should be able to do so coming week. Anybody
volunteering to look into the other ones?
The attached is what I have on my F12 box (gcc 4.4.2 20091222):
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On my
FreeBSD test system I am see no warnings triggered by -Wlogical-op
any more. How does it look on your side?
ole32:
usrmarshal.c:485: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1098: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1290: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
oleaut32:
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
comctl32/tests:
tab.c:520: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:540: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:563: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:978: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true kernel32/tests:
atom.c:70: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
Gerald 
3:02 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
2010/1/4 Paul Vriens <paul.vriens.wine(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 01/03/2010 10:12 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Most of them are false positives because of a problem between gcc
4.{3,4}.x and the strchr being defined as a macro in libc, see gcc bug
#36513 [1]. My karmic box seems to output the same.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36513
--
Nicolas Le Cam
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Austin English wrote:
I had a patch for this one (comctl32/tests) which I received feedback on
and need to brush up. I should be able to do so coming week. Anybody
volunteering to look into the other ones?
The attached is what I have on my F12 box (gcc 4.4.2 20091222):
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On my FreeBSD test system I am see no warnings triggered by -Wlogical-op
any more. How does it look on your side?
ole32:
usrmarshal.c:485: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1098: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
usrmarshal.c:1290: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
oleaut32:
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
variant.c:2090: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will
always evaluate as true
comctl32/tests:
tab.c:520: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:540: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:563: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
tab.c:978: warning: logical ?&&? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true kernel32/tests:
atom.c:70: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
Gerald 
4:28 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
Gerald Pfeifer schrieb:
I had a patch for this one (comctl32/tests) which I
received feedback on
and need to brush up. I should be able to do so coming week. Anybody
volunteering to look into the other ones?
I dont see a reason to take that warning serious, as its not a problem in any case. in
kernel32 it just happens because we use a Macro. Taking that case(v==1) out of the Macro
leads to harder readable code.
So IMHO i would not make -Wlogical-op the default.
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
kernel32/tests:
atom.c:70: warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
Gerald 
5:07 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
2010/1/4 André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de>de>:
I dont see a reason to take that warning serious, as
its not a problem in any case. in kernel32 it just happens because we use a Macro. Taking
that case(v==1) out of the Macro leads to harder readable code.
So IMHO i would not make -Wlogical-op the default.
Not using that macro at all would be even more readable. I'm probably
missing something obvious, but it seems to just do a wsprintfW() with
"#%d" as format.
6:16 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
Henri Verbeet schrieb:
2010/1/4 André Hentschel <nerv(a)dawncrow.de>de>:
i can confirm that you are right.
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
I dont see a reason to take that warning serious,
as its not a problem in any case. in kernel32 it just happens because we use a Macro.
Taking that case(v==1) out of the Macro leads to harder readable code.
So IMHO i would not make -Wlogical-op the default.
Not using that macro at all would be even more readable. I'm probably
missing something obvious, but it seems to just do a wsprintfW() with
"#%d" as format.
19 Sep
19 Sep
11:55 a.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Henri Verbeet wrote:
I see this has been comitted via b45d4aa161fbbb905fa9142d2757ff3f7952566d.
Thanks! Looks like this warning is useful after all. ;-)
In fact, doing a build with -Wlogical-op right now it turns out that with
the change above and the work last year there aren't any open issues on
that front any more and I'll submit a patch to make this used by default.
Gerald
I dont see a
reason to take that warning serious, as its not a problem
in any case. in kernel32 it just happens because we use a Macro.
Taking that case(v==1) out of the Macro leads to harder readable code.
So IMHO i would not make -Wlogical-op the default.
Not using that macro at all
would be even more readable. I'm probably
missing something obvious, but it seems to just do a wsprintfW() with
"#%d" as format. 
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Use GCC's -Wlogical-op if possible
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Rein Klazes wrote:
Indeed. And Alexandre committed a fix of mine in the last 24 hours. ;-)
Gerald
cert.c:1627:
warning: logical ?||? with non-zero constant will always
evaluate as true
That (in dlls/crypt32/tests) looks like a real bug to me.
4972
days inactive
5430
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
André Hentschel -
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Henri Verbeet -
Nicolas Le Cam -
Paul Vriens -
Rein Klazes