GCC 11

[Sveinar Søpler]

Well, debuild seem to put the same CFLAGS/LDFLAGS to gcc-mingw-w64 as it 
does to gcc, and i guess one of the "debian hardening" options puts some 
flags to mingw's LD that does not fly. This does not happen when you 
build "manually", so it is quite likely just a build config thing.

Sorry, for this noise, as this is most certainly unrelated to the 
original post. I will do some investigations towards debian build 
settings, but i do not think it has much to do with the gcc-11 concerns 
you have i am afraid, although it could be worth investigating "build 
system flags vs. manual compile" (atleast i find it interesting).

Again, i am sorry for the noise.

Sveinar

On 29.09.2021 18:18, Sveinar Søpler wrote:
>
> Sveinar
>
> On 29.09.2021 16:42, Eric Pouech wrote:
>
>> to correct myself:
>>
>> - I thought the trigger was "simply" the upgrade to GCC version 11... 
>> after some quick search, Fedora claims moving from 11.0 (F34) to 11.2 
>> (F35), but looks like F34 is pushing gcc 11.2 in updates since 
>> July... so the root cause of those new warnings need to be clarified
>>
>> - the warnings I'm seeing are triggered by -Wmisleading-indentation, 
>> -Warray-bounds, -Wsizeof-array-div, -Wmaybe-uninitialized, which are 
>> all active when -Wall is used
>>
>> it's strange from the log link above that non of the options work 
>> with the cross compiler
>>
>> [  569s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -target 
>> x86_64-w64-mingw32 -fuse-ld=lld... no
>> [  569s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -fno-strict-aliasing... no
>> [  569s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Werror=unknown-warning-option... no
>> [  569s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Werror=ignored-optimization-argument... no
>> [  569s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wdeclaration-after-statement... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wempty-body... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wignored-qualifiers... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Winit-self... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wpacked-not-aligned... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wpragma-pack... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wshift-overflow=2... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wstrict-prototypes... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wtype-limits... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wunused-but-set-parameter... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wvla... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wwrite-strings... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wpointer-arith... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wlogical-op... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wabsolute-value... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wno-format... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -Wformat-overflow... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wnonnull... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -mcx16... no
>> [  570s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports -gdwarf-2... no
>> [  571s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -gstrict-dwarf... no
>> [  571s] checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
>> -fexcess-precision=standard... no
>> I'd expect that a couple of them are supported
>>
> That was indeed a bit strange. When i do just a regular configure 
> --enable-win64 without any flags, i get this on Ubuntu 21.04:
>
> checking for x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc... x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc
> checking whether x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc works... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -target 
> x86_64-w64-mingw32 -fuse-ld=lld... no
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -fno-strict-aliasing... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
> -Werror=unknown-warning-option... no
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
> -Werror=ignored-optimization-argument... no
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wempty-body... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wignored-qualifiers... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Winit-self... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wpacked-not-aligned... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wpragma-pack... no
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wshift-overflow=2... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wstrict-prototypes... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wtype-limits... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
> -Wunused-but-set-parameter... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wvla... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wwrite-strings... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wpointer-arith... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wlogical-op... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wabsolute-value... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wno-format... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wformat-overflow... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -Wnonnull... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -mcx16... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -gdwarf-2... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports -gstrict-dwarf... yes
> checking whether the cross-compiler supports 
> -fexcess-precision=standard... yes
>
> I do kinda fear this pulls us down a unrelated rabbithole - some 
> buildflags or "OBS quirks" perhaps.. dunno. In short: The log from 
> WineHQ buildserver does not really look like it should :)
>
> Sveinar
>