| Message ID | CAAgBjM=ipUaAG5Cf9i6UThGwYvyzrvnALhLq8tjyZWkU8wF0zQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [libgfortran] Replace implicit conversions between enums in io/transfer.c by explicit casts. | expand |
On 12 September 2017 at 17:08, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > I am working on patch for PR78736 > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00011.html), > which adds a new warning -Wenum-conversion to C front-end to warn for > implicit conversion between different enums. > The warning in that patch triggered on io/transfer.c for following > implicit conversions: > i) Implicit conversion from unit_mode to file_mode > ii) Implicit conversion from unit_sign_s to unit_sign. > > I was wondering if the warning for above implicit conversions would be > correct since unit_mode > and file_mode are different enums and similarly unit_sign_s and > unit_sign are different enums ? > Or are these warnings false positives ? > > The attached patch makes the conversion explicit to silence the warnings. > Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. > Does the patch look OK ? ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00036.html Thanks, Prathamesh > > Thanks, > Prathamesh
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote: > On 12 September 2017 at 17:08, Prathamesh Kulkarni > <prathamesh.kulkarni@linaro.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> I am working on patch for PR78736 >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00011.html), >> which adds a new warning -Wenum-conversion to C front-end to warn for >> implicit conversion between different enums. >> The warning in that patch triggered on io/transfer.c for following >> implicit conversions: >> i) Implicit conversion from unit_mode to file_mode >> ii) Implicit conversion from unit_sign_s to unit_sign. >> >> I was wondering if the warning for above implicit conversions would be >> correct since unit_mode >> and file_mode are different enums and similarly unit_sign_s and >> unit_sign are different enums ? >> Or are these warnings false positives ? >> >> The attached patch makes the conversion explicit to silence the warnings. >> Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. >> Does the patch look OK ? > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2017-09/msg00036.html Hi, based on a quick look, it does seem like your patch has managed to flush out some potential bugs. As you say, those enums are different, so I don't think your patch is the correct fix. Jerry, you're probably the one most familiar with formatted IO, what do you think?
diff --git a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c index 529637061b1..3307d213bb7 100644 --- a/libgfortran/io/transfer.c +++ b/libgfortran/io/transfer.c @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ current_mode (st_parameter_dt *dtp) { file_mode m; - m = FORM_UNSPECIFIED; + m = (file_mode) FORM_UNSPECIFIED; if (dtp->u.p.current_unit->flags.access == ACCESS_DIRECT) { @@ -1671,17 +1671,17 @@ formatted_transfer_scalar_read (st_parameter_dt *dtp, bt type, void *p, int kind case FMT_S: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_S; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_S; break; case FMT_SS: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_SS; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_SS; break; case FMT_SP: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_SP; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_SP; break; case FMT_BN: @@ -2130,17 +2130,17 @@ formatted_transfer_scalar_write (st_parameter_dt *dtp, bt type, void *p, int kin case FMT_S: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_S; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_S; break; case FMT_SS: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_SS; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_SS; break; case FMT_SP: consume_data_flag = 0; - dtp->u.p.sign_status = SIGN_SP; + dtp->u.p.sign_status = (unit_sign) SIGN_SP; break; case FMT_BN: