This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Find more ObjC methods
- From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- To: Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>
- Cc: Alexander Malmberg <alexander at malmberg dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mah at jump-ing dot de, discuss-gnustep at gnu dot org, David Ayers <d dot ayers at inode dot at>, Pete French <pete at twisted dot org dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:56:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Find more ObjC methods
On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 11:27 US/Pacific, Devang Patel wrote:
On Oct 7, 2003, at 10:27 AM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:
in situations where, it can
determine that foo responds to bar. So now GCC does not
issue warnings in such cases. And we are discussing in this
thread whether we should add new command line option to
enable 'wrong' compiler warnings.
The warning isn't wrong unless you don't want to follow this
convention
(methods declared only in an @implementation are private to that
@implementation).
As David Ayers and I have explained, we find this convention, and the
support from the compiler in adhering to it, useful. If you don't,
you're free to not enable/disable the warning (note "optional").
I do not approve such patch.
Why? The warning would be optional, so doing this gains you nothing,
it
merely prevents those who do want the warning from getting it. It
seems
that you want to remove a feature that others use just because you
don't
use it, which is not a particularly nice attitude.
The reason why I'm opposing such warning is that in the long
run it is confusing to end user. How will developer
distinguish "foo may not respond to bar" warning is real or
not? This leads to, "Do I trust what compiler is saying?"
Exactly.
But if you want this badly and Objective-C maintainers approve
it then go ahead! Its better if wording is different for the
cases where compiler can actually determine that foo responds
to bar, but forced to emit warning because user wants it.
Yes. There are 2 other ObjC maintainers, of course :-), but
personally I'd consider it _essential_ that the wording be
different (e.g., "method `+foo' not published in @interface' or
something along those lines).
--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group Cupertino, CA USA 95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc. +1.408.974.6229 Fax .5477