thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9 [Sep 2018]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Richard Smith via llvm-dev

2018-Sep-16 17:40 UTC

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

Yes, we should produce this warning in C++11 mode too. (I could be
misrecalling, but I think the rationale for the current behaviour is based
on historical GCC behaviour.)

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 10:04 David Blaikie via cfe-dev, <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Fair point made on that thread - that this is a DR, so technically the
> std::move is pessimizing even in C++11 mode. Richard: Any thoughts on
> generalizing the warning to cover these cases even in C++11 mode?
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:37 AM Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is a new discussion related to -Wredundant-move warning on GCC
>> bugzilla.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
>>
>> pi 14. 9. 2018 o 9:53 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
napísal(a):
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:48 AM Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at
redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM Dávid Bolvanský via
llvm-dev
>>>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayerTest.cpp:79:40:
>>>>
>>>> >       required from here
>>>> >
>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayer.h:314:29:
>>>> >     warning: redundant move in return statement
[-Wredundant-move]
>>>> >     314 |         return std::move(Err);
>>>>
>>>> Note that the move (into the implicit JITSymbol(Error) ctor) is
only
>>>> redundant if the compiler implements a fix for
>>>>
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579>
>>>> "Return by converting move constructor".  (But not
sure whether the
>>>> LLVM
>>>> compiler baselines imply that, anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like that was accepted for C++14, not 11. So I don't
believe it's
>>> valid to remove the std::move in C++11 code. (& I believe
Clang's warning
>>> correctly diagnoses this only in the right language versions) - so
we
>>> probably want to disable the buggy GCC warning here, then.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In LibreOffice it forced me to
>>>> introduce ugly #ifs, to not have to disable that warning
outright,
>>>> <
>>>>
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=dc06c8f4989fc28d0c31ebd333e53dfe0e0f5f66>
>>>>
>>>> "-Werror=redundant-move (GCC 9), take two".)
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180916/bf4d4fcd/attachment.html>

Richard Trieu via llvm-dev

2018-Sep-18 23:07 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

I'll look into the pessimizing move warning, then after that, the
deprecated copy warning.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:41 AM Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Yes, we should produce this warning in C++11 mode too. (I could be
> misrecalling, but I think the rationale for the current behaviour is based
> on historical GCC behaviour.)
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 10:04 David Blaikie via cfe-dev, <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Fair point made on that thread - that this is a DR, so technically the
>> std::move is pessimizing even in C++11 mode. Richard: Any thoughts on
>> generalizing the warning to cover these cases even in C++11 mode?
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:37 AM Dávid Bolvanský <
>> david.bolvansky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a new discussion related to -Wredundant-move warning on
GCC
>>> bugzilla.
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
>>>
>>> pi 14. 9. 2018 o 9:53 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
napísal(a):
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:48 AM Stephan Bergmann <sbergman
at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM Dávid Bolvanský via
llvm-dev
>>>>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayerTest.cpp:79:40:
>>>>>
>>>>> >       required from here
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayer.h:314:29:
>>>>> >     warning: redundant move in return statement
[-Wredundant-move]
>>>>> >     314 |         return std::move(Err);
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the move (into the implicit JITSymbol(Error)
ctor) is only
>>>>> redundant if the compiler implements a fix for
>>>>>
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579>
>>>>> "Return by converting move constructor".  (But
not sure whether the
>>>>> LLVM
>>>>> compiler baselines imply that, anyway.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks like that was accepted for C++14, not 11. So I don't
believe it's
>>>> valid to remove the std::move in C++11 code. (& I believe
Clang's warning
>>>> correctly diagnoses this only in the right language versions) -
so we
>>>> probably want to disable the buggy GCC warning here, then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In LibreOffice it forced me to
>>>>> introduce ugly #ifs, to not have to disable that warning
outright,
>>>>> <
>>>>>
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=dc06c8f4989fc28d0c31ebd333e53dfe0e0f5f66>
>>>>>
>>>>> "-Werror=redundant-move (GCC 9), take two".)
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180918/36b05af0/attachment.html>

Richard Trieu via llvm-dev

2018-Sep-25 03:40 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

+ Erik, who implemented DR1579

Originally, I had the warning similar to GCC's warning, but took it out due
to not having DR1579 implemented in clang (warning changed in r243594)

Erik in r274291 implemented DR1579, although PR27785 didn't mention
anything about std::move

It looks like what's happening is that Clang and GCC handles the return
differently.  Clang needs the std::move call to use the move constructor
while GCC will use the move constructor with or without the std::move
call.  This means that the warning is currently correct when running on
either compiler.

This is a reduced example.  Compiled with Clang, it will print "move
constructor" then "copy constructor".  GCC will print "move
constructor"
twice.

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

struct A {
  A(int) {}
  A() {  std::cout << "empty constructor"; }
  A(const A&) {  std::cout << "copy constructor\n"; }
  A(A&&) {  std::cout << "move constructor\n"; }
};
struct B {
  B(A a) {}
};

A getA() { return A(1); }

B run1() {
  A a = getA();
  return std::move(a);
}

B run2() {
  A a = getA();
  return a;
}

int main() {
  std::cout << "with move:\n";
  run1();
  std::cout << "no move:\n";
  run2();
}



On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:07 PM Richard Trieu <rtrieu at google.com>
wrote:
> I'll look into the pessimizing move warning, then after that, the
> deprecated copy warning.
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 10:41 AM Richard Smith <richard at
metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we should produce this warning in C++11 mode too. (I could be
>> misrecalling, but I think the rationale for the current behaviour is
based
>> on historical GCC behaviour.)
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 10:04 David Blaikie via cfe-dev, <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Fair point made on that thread - that this is a DR, so technically
the
>>> std::move is pessimizing even in C++11 mode. Richard: Any thoughts
on
>>> generalizing the warning to cover these cases even in C++11 mode?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:37 AM Dávid Bolvanský <
>>> david.bolvansky at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a new discussion related to -Wredundant-move warning
on GCC
>>>> bugzilla.
>>>>
>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
>>>>
>>>> pi 14. 9. 2018 o 9:53 David Blaikie <dblaikie at
gmail.com> napísal(a):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:48 AM Stephan Bergmann
<sbergman at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>>>> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM Dávid Bolvanský
via llvm-dev
>>>>>> > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayerTest.cpp:79:40:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >       required from here
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayer.h:314:29:
>>>>>> >     warning: redundant move in return statement
[-Wredundant-move]
>>>>>> >     314 |         return std::move(Err);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the move (into the implicit JITSymbol(Error)
ctor) is only
>>>>>> redundant if the compiler implements a fix for
>>>>>>
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579>
>>>>>> "Return by converting move constructor". 
(But not sure whether the
>>>>>> LLVM
>>>>>> compiler baselines imply that, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like that was accepted for C++14, not 11. So I
don't believe
>>>>> it's valid to remove the std::move in C++11 code.
(& I believe Clang's
>>>>> warning correctly diagnoses this only in the right language
versions) - so
>>>>> we probably want to disable the buggy GCC warning here,
then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In LibreOffice it forced me to
>>>>>> introduce ugly #ifs, to not have to disable that
warning outright,
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=dc06c8f4989fc28d0c31ebd333e53dfe0e0f5f66>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "-Werror=redundant-move (GCC 9), take two".)
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180924/5cc05048/attachment.html>

Seemingly Similar Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

llvm dev - Sep 2018 - [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9

Seemingly Similar Threads