Large number of warnings when building with ARM RVCT

VERIFIED WONTFIX

Status

Tamarin
Tracing Virtual Machine
VERIFIED WONTFIX
10 years ago
8 years ago

People

(Reporter: Rob Borcic, Assigned: Rob Borcic)

Tracking

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Assignee)

Description

10 years ago
Using the ARM RVCT 2.2 compiler to build TT for Symbian, there are several hundred warning messages. This bug will be used to track changes that reduce the warnings to a more manageable number.

Comment 1

10 years ago
The more manageable number should be exactly zero -- and once we get it there, let's convert warnings to errors so they don't crop up.
(Assignee)

Comment 2

10 years ago
Created attachment 328004 [details] [diff] [review]
Reduces instances of warning #830-D

Example of warning:
Warning:  #830-D: function "MMgc::GCWeakRef::operator new" has no corresponding operator delete (to be called if an exception is thrown during initialization of an allocated object)

This patch adds an empty matching delete operator for FastAllocator, GCObject, GCFinalizedObject, GCFinalizedObjectOptIn, RCObject and GCWeakRef. The extra code is only included if REQUIRE_DELETE_OPERATOR is defined and this flag is currently only defined for Symbian.
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Attachment #328004 - Attachment is patch: true
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Attachment #328004 - Flags: review?(stejohns)

Updated

10 years ago
Attachment #328004 - Flags: review?(stejohns) → review+
(Assignee)

Comment 3

10 years ago
Created attachment 329531 [details] [diff] [review]
Further reducde warnings when using RVCT 2.2.

The previous patch was included as part of changeset 492:307fb716348c.

This patch further reduces instances of warning #830-D as well as eliminating instances of Warning:  #1165-D: types cannot be declared in anonymous unions.
Attachment #328004 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #329531 - Flags: review?(stejohns)
(Assignee)

Comment 4

10 years ago
Created attachment 329532 [details] [diff] [review]
Correct version of previous patch.

The previous patch was missing a change. Sorry about that.
Attachment #329531 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #329532 - Flags: review?(stejohns)
Attachment #329531 - Flags: review?(stejohns)

Updated

10 years ago
Attachment #329532 - Flags: review?(stejohns) → review+

Comment 5

10 years ago
what is the overhead of the delete operators on compilers that don't require them?  put another way what's the cost of making them not-ifdefd?
(Assignee)

Comment 6

10 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)
It would depend on the compiler. At best, the compiler would exclude the operator and there would be no overhead. At worst, there would be a small amount of extra code and an extra function call.

Comment 7

10 years ago
pushed as changeset:   514:ecd15452554d

Comment 8

9 years ago
are there more patches coming? else lets mark FIXED

Updated

9 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX

Updated

8 years ago
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.