From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C126A046B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:44:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427391BE86; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:44:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B941A1BE83 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:44:48 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2019 06:44:22 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,295,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="169256237" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.51]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2019 06:44:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:44:17 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: kkanas@marvell.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , reshma.pattan@intel.com Message-ID: <20190722134416.GB289@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190722123959.29703-1-kkanas@marvell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190722123959.29703-1-kkanas@marvell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: disable flag for no packet member warning X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:39:59PM +0200, kkanas@marvell.com wrote: > From: Krzysztof Kanas > > gcc prior 9 don't will add additional warning for unrecognized command > line option, but only when there is some other warning in the code, e.g > unused variable. > I don't think this behaviour has changed in gcc 9. I just did a test compile with gcc 9.1, and no warning was printed for flag "-Wno-random-warnings". The online docs also make no mention of this behaviour being conditional on GCC version [1]. /Bruce [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html