[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#23771: Eliminating compiler warnings

From: Ken Brown
Subject: bug#23771: Eliminating compiler warnings
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:38:19 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1

On 6/15/2016 10:44 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Ken Brown <address@hidden>
Btw, it would have helped if you'd show examples of warnings that
eliminated by each patch in the set; for some of them, it's easy to
guess, others not so easy.  I hope I did right.

Thanks for the review. Sorry, I should have thought of giving examples of the warnings.

Two comments: First, patch 0006-... is there because there might be a jump over 
an AUTO_STRING call. (This happens exactly once in the Cygwin-w32 build.) It 
seems stupid to have to worry about this. An alternative would be to just 
disable the -Wjump-misses-init warning.

The warning is IMO important, it's just too bad GCC has false
positives with it.


Second, patch 0007-... is there because I couldn't think of a reasonable way to 
avoid -Waddress warnings when compiling w32fns.c, w32menu.c, and menu.c in the 
Cygwin-w32 build. Everything I thought of would have made the code very ugly. 
So I simply disabled that warning for the Cygwin-w32 build, and I took the 
liberty of doing the same thing for the MinGW build, which I think is also 
affected in some cases. If someone sees a better way of eliminating those 
warnings, that would be preferable.

What warnings does that option produce?  I'm not sure I've seen any
warnings about addresses, but maybe I misunderstand the nature of the

Here's a typical example:

../../master/src/menu.c: In function ‘digest_single_submenu’:
../../master/src/menu.c:46:30: warning: the address of ‘AppendMenuW’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
 # define unicode_append_menu AppendMenuW
../../master/src/menu.c:691:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘unicode_append_menu’
     if (unicode_append_menu)
../../master/src/menu.c:46:30: warning: the address of ‘AppendMenuW’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
 # define unicode_append_menu AppendMenuW
../../master/src/menu.c:767:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘unicode_append_menu’
     if (unicode_append_menu)

What follows is specific comments to some hunks.

+#else  /* not HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM */
+_Noreturn void
+decode_window_system_frame (Lisp_Object frame)
+  error ("Window system is not in use");
+_Noreturn void
+check_window_system (struct frame *f)
+  error ("Window system is not in use");
+#endif /* not HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM */

What kind of warnings do you get without these changes?  I don't
understand why this is needed.

A build with no windows system yields these warnings:

../../warnings/src/frame.c: In function ‘decode_window_system_frame’:
../../warnings/src/frame.c:119:1: warning: function might be candidate for attribute ‘noreturn’ [-Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn]
 decode_window_system_frame (Lisp_Object frame)
../../warnings/src/frame.c: In function ‘check_window_system’:
../../warnings/src/frame.c:129:1: warning: function might be candidate for attribute ‘noreturn’ [-Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn]
 check_window_system (struct frame *f)

--- a/src/font.c
+++ b/src/font.c
@@ -2863,7 +2863,10 @@ font_open_entity (struct frame *f, Lisp_Object entity, 
int pixel_size)
   struct font_driver_list *driver_list;
   Lisp_Object objlist, size, val, font_object;
   struct font *font;
-  int min_width, height, psize;
+  int height, psize;
+  int min_width;

   eassert (FONT_ENTITY_P (entity));
   size = AREF (entity, FONT_SIZE_INDEX);
@@ -2907,10 +2910,12 @@ font_open_entity (struct frame *f, Lisp_Object entity, 
int pixel_size)
        Fcons (font_object, AREF (entity, FONT_OBJLIST_INDEX)));

   font = XFONT_OBJECT (font_object);
   min_width = (font->min_width ? font->min_width
               : font->average_width ? font->average_width
               : font->space_width ? font->space_width
               : 1);

Why not move the declaration of min_width and the calculation of its
value inside the #ifdef that uses it?  Then you'd have eliminated 2

Good idea.  I'll do that.

--- a/src/frame.c
+++ b/src/frame.c
@@ -2143,13 +2143,12 @@ DEFUN ("iconify-frame", Ficonify_frame, Siconify_frame,
 If omitted, FRAME defaults to the currently selected frame.  */)
   (Lisp_Object frame)
-  struct frame *f = decode_live_frame (frame);
   /* Don't allow minibuf_window to remain on an iconified frame.  */
   check_minibuf_window (frame, EQ (minibuf_window, selected_window));

   /* I think this should be done with a hook.  */
+  struct frame *f = decode_live_frame (frame);
   if (FRAME_WINDOW_P (f))
       x_iconify_frame (f);

I understand the motivation, but this change has a downside: it
changes the order of validity check of the function arguments, and it
completely removes the check of the FRAME argument in the builds
without X.  So I don't think we should make this change this way.

Yes, I was very careless about that.  I'm glad you caught it.

We could do something like this instead:

 struct frame *f = decode_live_frame (frame);
 (void) decode_live_frame (frame);

Or we could work around the warning in some other way, or even live
with it.

I'm now thinking, especially in view of Richard's comments, that maybe we should just live with the "unused variable" warnings that can't be avoided without cluttering the code.

@@ -3015,13 +3014,12 @@ or bottom edge of the outer frame of FRAME relative to 
the right or
 bottom edge of FRAME's display.  */)
   (Lisp_Object frame, Lisp_Object x, Lisp_Object y)
-  register struct frame *f = decode_live_frame (frame);

   /* I think this should be done with a hook.  */
+  register struct frame *f = decode_live_frame (frame);
   if (FRAME_WINDOW_P (f))
     x_set_offset (f, XINT (x), XINT (y), 1);

Same comment here: the order of checking the arguments is important to
keep on all frames in all builds.

Yes, more carelessness on my part.

--- a/src/w32fns.c
+++ b/src/w32fns.c
@@ -6888,7 +6888,7 @@ A tooltip's maximum size is specified by 
 Text larger than the specified size is clipped.  */)
   (Lisp_Object string, Lisp_Object frame, Lisp_Object parms, Lisp_Object 
timeout, Lisp_Object dx, Lisp_Object dy)
-  struct frame *tip_f;
+  struct frame *f, *tip_f;

Please add comments explaining why 'f' is needed (here and
elsewhere).  Someone who doesn't remember the w32 definition of
FRAME_DISPLAY_INFO will stumble on this one.


          struct glyph *g;

Better moved inside the #ifdef where it's used, no?


          if (clear_mouse_face (hlinfo))
            cursor = No_Cursor;

This and other similar hunks that ifdef away clear_mouse_face are
incorrect: Emacs supports mouse highlight on TTY frames (if the mouse
is supported, e.g. via GPM or on MS-Windows/MS-DOS), so we must call
clear_mouse_face there as well.

The same kind of carelessness yet again. (I was just trying to get rid of the warning that 'cursor' is unused, but I obviously threw away too much.) I'll fix all these and resend the patch.

--- a/src/conf_post.h
+++ b/src/conf_post.h
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ You lose; /* Emacs for DOS must be compiled with DJGPP */
 extern void _DebPrint (const char *fmt, ...);
 #  define DebPrint(stuff) _DebPrint stuff
 # else
-#  define DebPrint(stuff)
+#  define DebPrint(stuff) {}
 # endif

Yuck!  Can we simply not use the "empty body" warning option?  When is
it important to flag an empty body of a function?

Here's a typical example:

Code like this:

  if (!f->output_data.w32->asked_for_visible)
    DebPrint (("frame %p (%s) reexposed by WM_PAINT\n", f,
               SDATA (f->name)));

leads to this warning (if EMACSDEBUG is not defined):

../../warnings/src/w32term.c: In function ‘w32_read_socket’:
../../warnings/src/w32term.c:4613:28: warning: suggest braces around empty body in an ‘if’ statement [-Wempty-body]
           SDATA (f->name)));

But I'd be fine with just disabling this warning, at least for the w32 builds. Paul, do you think it's important to keep this warning?

Thanks again for the review.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]