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: Ping Ping Ping: [PATCH] RFA: Add a small indication to warnings that are promoted to errors


On 2 February 2010 04:24, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Michael Matz wrote:
>
>>>> I'd be happy with a variant of your first choice (still prefering
>>>> error: warning: <the message> for simplicity, objecting to
>>>> appending [was warning] or similar stuff).
>>> I couldn't quite parse that, but "error: warning:" just seems like a
>>> sign of confusion on the part of the compiler.
>>
>> People will get used to it, and tools can parse it easily, while appending
>> "[was warning]" seems like a terrible idea.
>
> We can of course agree to disagree. ?Without a controlled test of real
> users we cannot be sure which will be more confusing. ?But, I find it
> likely that when a naive user sees "error: warning: ..." they will be
> unsure whether they are looking at an error or a warning.
>
> If we cannot agree, then I suggest we simply leave things as they are.
> People who turn on -Werror will see errors; if they want to know which
> ones are warnings, then can turn off -Werror and compile again.

For some users, perhaps many, this second compilation may be hard to
arrange.  Complex build systems tend to bury gcc under several layers
of abstraction and control, and make it difficult to compile a single
module with options different from the others.

With gcc's own makefile, for example, the choices boil down to: make
everything and capture the command used to compile the offending
module, then re-issue it without -Werror; or set CFLAGS to override it
and then locate the offending object in the built tree and remove it
before re-running make, and run make again; or set CFLAGS, make clean,
and make.  The first two are inconvenient and manual, the third takes
a very long time.

Anyway, I see this will not reach agreement, so the patch is withdrawn.

-- 
Google UK Limited | Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London SW1W 9TQ | Registered in England Number: 3977902


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