Bug 436234
| Summary: | gcc emits 100% useless packed warning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | JW <ohtmvyyn> |
| Component: | gcc | Assignee: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 10 | CC: | tao |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-12-18 06:04:46 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
The warning is not useless. Using packed attribute for char doesn't make any sense. Why are you doing that? (In reply to comment #1) > The warning is not useless. Using packed attribute for char doesn't make any > sense. Why are you doing that? It is useless. What does it achieve? Please explain. BTW fixing bugs doesn't make any sense either. Why are you doing that? And please explain why packing with no saving is a failure which merits a warning. *** Bug 250313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #1) > The warning is not useless. Maybe to be consistent gcc should emit a warning when one uses the -O flag and no optimization is performed on a section of code? Or maybe gcc should emit a warning when one uses "#if 0" along the lines of "Conditional value is always false". Please explain why the warning is not useless. If one removed that packing from something which doesn't get packed then what difference does that make? It wont change the code, it will only make the warning go away. Therefore the warning is useless. The type can be a typedef. It's not trivial to test whether this particular typedef'ed type is "packable" or not. (I just tested - gcc 4.3.0 gives this warning on typedefs too). This message is a reminder that Fedora 8 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 8. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '8'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 8's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 8 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Description of problem: gcc emits useless messages like "warning: 'packed' attribute ignored for field of type 'char[62]'" which unnecessarily clutters output with totally useless information. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gcc-4.1.2-33 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. create file x.c containing: struct one { short a __attribute__ ((packed)); char b __attribute__ ((packed)); } __attribute__ ((packed)); 2. gcc -c x.c Actual results: 2. x.c:4: warning: 'packed' attribute ignored for field of type 'char' Expected results: No warning is necessary Additional info: Quite simply packing a 1 char into 1 char is a successful packing! So why warn about it? What is the point? Should everyone have to edit their files and removed packed attribute if the data type is char or if there is nothing to save in packing? And what about when the data type changes? Do we really have to get our calculators out and work out what the compiler may or may not be saving and add/remove packed attributes accordingly? And even if that is done, what is the net effect - just the disappearance of the annoying compiler warnings? gcc should be getting smarter, not dumber.