This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
1. If we can get to the point where every warning() call has an OPT_*, then we can change warning() to *require* an OPT_* and then we've locked in the new system - nobody could then add new warnings without being able to control them. I was pondering a catch-all option to avoid an explosion of options, messy but effective.
This is an internal issue, affecting us as developers; it's not an argument for changing the external interface of the compiler by adding a new -Woption.
I'm OK with an internal-only OPT_* value, but I can't think of a way to stop developers from using it only because they're too lazy to think about which other OPT_* values might be appropriate.
In general, I agree, BUT... it's a warning because gcc knows that it might be intentional.
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com (916) 791-8304
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |