This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 24 Jan 2003 18:46:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <60610000.1043428765@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
[...]
| My claim is very simple: this is a bigger can of worms than it looks
| like, and numbers are a relatively simple, time-tested solution; one
| that we know from experience can be made to work, both for users and
| for implementors.
I'm having hard time to figure out how it can be argued that enumerations
are better than magic constants in source codes and not apply the same
very reasons for this particular case, given that there is no vendor-neutral
numbers agreed on. As I said earlier, I find codes will numbered
#pragmas very difficult to read. Named warnings can be made flexible
and we can leave ourselves maximum wiggle room as you're suggesting.
-- Gaby