Previous GCC version was 8.4.0
- https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/porting_to.html
- https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html
- https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-11/porting_to.html
The types int32_t
and uint32_t
have been changed from int
and unsigned int
to long
and unsigned long
. Upstream GCC uses long
integers for int32_t/uint32_t on Xtensa, RISC-V and other architectures.
2021r2 and older, GCC 8 | 2022r1, GCC 11 | |
---|---|---|
xtensa | (unsigned) int | (unsigned) long |
riscv32 | (unsigned) long | (unsigned) long |
The most cases in code are related to the formatting. Using %i
, %x
, etc., should be replaced to PRIi32
, PRIxx
, and others from <inttypes.h>
.
In other cases it should be noted that enums have int
type.
In common, int32_t
and int
are different types, as well as uint32_t
and unsigned int
.
CONFIG_COMPILER_DISABLE_GCC8_WARNINGS
option was introduced to help transition from rigid GCC 5 toolchain to new ones with helping build ancient code. Enough time has passed to fix the warnings.
For now in GCC 11, the suggestion is to review your own code to comply compiler warnings.
Warning details: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Double check your code then fix please. Unfortunately, not all seemingly simple ways to satisfy the compiler will work. You can supress such warnings if the compiler worried for nothing.
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overflow"
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Warray-bounds"
memset(RTC_SLOW_MEM, 0, CONFIG_ULP_COPROC_RESERVE_MEM); // <<-- This line leads to warnings
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#if __GNUC__ >= 11
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wstringop-overread" // <<-- This key had been introduced since GCC 11
#endif
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Warray-bounds"
memcpy(backup_write_data, (void *)EFUSE_PGM_DATA0_REG, sizeof(backup_write_data)); // <<-- This line leads to warnings
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
Warning details: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-11.2.0/gcc/Warning-Options.html
Double check your code then fix please.
Unaligned pointer value for data doesn't have penalty for xtensa and riscv32 Espressif chips so we can ignore it in most cases.
components/bt/host/bluedroid/btc/profile/std/gatt/btc_gatt_util.c: In function 'btc_to_bta_gatt_id':
components/bt/host/bluedroid/btc/profile/std/gatt/btc_gatt_util.c:105:21: warning: taking address of packed member of 'struct <anonymous>' may result in an unaligned pointer value [-Waddress-of-packed-member]
105 | btc_to_bta_uuid(&p_dest->uuid, &p_src->uuid);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
on CMake level for tons of cases:
set_source_files_properties(
"host/bluedroid/bta/gatt/bta_gattc_act.c"
"host/bluedroid/bta/gatt/bta_gattc_cache.c"
"host/bluedroid/btc/profile/std/gatt/btc_gatt_util.c"
"host/bluedroid/btc/profile/std/gatt/btc_gatts.c"
PROPERTIES COMPILE_FLAGS -Wno-address-of-packed-member)
or on code level:
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#if __GNUC__ >= 9
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Waddress-of-packed-member" <<-- This key had been introduced since GCC 9
#endif
uint32_t* reg_ptr = (uint32_t*)src;
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
The function abs()
from stdlib.h takes int
argument. Please use llabs()
for types that intended to be 64-bit. In particular it's important for time_t
.