Re: [PATCH 0/5] Remove a few hurdles of compiling with clang

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/12/2017 05:45 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 05:37 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2017 05:23 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>  - gdb: Add -Wno-mismatched-tags: We already have a system that tests which
>>>>> warning flags are supported by the current compiler, so this flag will not
>>>>> be included in the builds with GCC.  So it's neutral for GCC, and improves
>>>>> the situation for Clang with almost no effort.
>>>>
>>>> This warning is a bug in clang and really should not be warned about
>>>> in either -Wall or -Wextra.  I have been complaining about this since
>>>> clang added this option.
>>>
>>> IIRC, the reason this warning exists is because Microsoft's compilers
>>> mangle "struct" and "class" differently, so for projects that
>>> want to be portable to that compiler, it's a helpful warning.
>>> (Whether that should ever be part of -Wall is a separate matter...)
>>>
>>> I don't think we'd want to bend backwards to support MSVC
>>> though.  It's so non-conforming that it's scary.  Disabling
>>> that warning is the right thing to do, IMO.
>>
>> Why not have clang disable this warning by default instead?
> 
> You'll have to ask clang developers.
> 
>> I am sorry but people who write C++ should understand that they are the same.
> 
> We know the standard says so, and I know that that's true on the ABIs
> we care about.  But in practice, what compilers (a project
> cares about) matters more than what the standard says.  After all,
> if the standard says the language does X, but no gcc behaves that
> way, we wouldn't ever want code to depend on X, would we?

For reference, so no one thinks I'm making this up:  :-)

  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1026535

Thanks,
Pedro Alves