This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc warning
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com, jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com
- Subject: Re: gcc warning
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:45:56 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at codesoucery dot com, jching at flex dot com, mrs at windriver dot com
> From: Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com>
>
> On Oct 31, 2000, Jimen Ching <jching@flex.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I got this warning with latest CVS. How do I fix my code so it does not
> > > appear?
>
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
> > Use shorter literal strings.
>
> Right, but this begs the question of when this warning should be enabled:
> by default, with -Wall, etc.
>
> A user trying to check her program for maximum portability will
> supply flags like -ansi -pedantic; in that case the warning should
> be produced. But I'm not sure that it should be produced by default
> or even with -Wall.
Joe,
The warning is already controlled by -pedantic, it's not activated by
-Wall or on by default. So I don't understand all the flag fuss. :-)
The issue, as I see it, is what to do >>when compiling C++ code<<.
IMO, we can either use the C++ 64K limit, or remove the warning
entirely. We may also need a C++ specific wording according to Gaby.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-10/msg00745.html
But in any case neither the c89/509 or c99/4095 string minimums seem
appropriate regardless of what flag activates it.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions