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]

Re: [PATCH/fortran] Add option to make 1st error fatal

From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:28:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH/fortran] Add option to make 1st error fatal
References: <20051031042600.GA22982@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200510310429.j9V4Tj1N012961@earth.phy.uc.edu> <20051031043810.GB22982@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>

On Monday 31 October 2005 04:38, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:29:45PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > > I have not idea what you mean.  If I use "gfortran -Werror"
> > > with my patch, gfortran will exit when it hits the first
> > > warning.  That appears to be fairly fatal.
> >
> > I am trying to say that the behavior with -Werror on gcc,
> > is that it turns warnings into errors and does not make
> > them a fatal error.
>
> What's the point?  So, gcc prints "Error: " instead of
> "Warning: ".

Not even that. It just controls whether compilation is considered to be 
successful after a warning has been issues.

The only user-visible difference in the C frontend is that it prints
"cc1: warnings being treated as errors", and the process returns nonzero if 
any warnings are issued.

Paul

References:
- Re: [PATCH/fortran] Add option to make 1st error fatal
  - From: Steve Kargl
- Re: [PATCH/fortran] Add option to make 1st error fatal
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: [PATCH/fortran] Add option to make 1st error fatal
  - From: Steve Kargl

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]