Re: new module 'sigsegv'

[Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:29 AM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:49:35AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> [...]
[...]
> > > @@ -183,6 +183,9 @@ main ()
> > >        *(volatile int *) (page + 0x678) = 42;
> > >        break;
> > >      case 3:
> > > +#if 6 < __GNUC__
> > > +# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wnull-dereference"
> > > +#endif
> > >        *(volatile int *) 0 = 42;
> > >        break;
> > >      case 4:
> >
> > We shouldn't spend time eliminating warnings from test code.
> >
> > The goal is to have a good coverage of the lib/* code with unit tests.
> > That means, we need to
> >   - make it easy to write unit tests,
> >   - not make it time-consuming to maintain them.
> >
> > Eliminating warnings from lib/* code is useful, to avoid bugs in the
> > programs. But eliminating warnings from tests/* code goes against the
> > goal of increasing test coverage.

Hi Bruno,
Isn't this code exceptional enough to merit three lines of warning suppression?
I would like to continue to use -Werror with most warning options even
in test code,
as long as the cost is low. This feels like a very low one-time cost.

> > I think the right fix would be that gnulib-tool's --import/--update
> > option, when creating a tests directory, adds a $(CFLAG_ALLOW_WARNING)
> > to tests/Makefile.am, where CFLAG_ALLOW_WARNING is defined as
> >   -Wno-error  when the compiler is GCC or clang,
> >   empty       otherwise
> > Will that work in GNU grep?

I would prefer not to exempt all of grep/gnulib's test code from
-Werror -Wnull-dereference just to accommodate this one unusual case.