This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 24 Jan 2003 18:51:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- References: <58640000.1043428355@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> --On Friday, January 24, 2003 11:33:49 AM +0000 "Joseph S. Myers"
> <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> So, in favor of numbers:
> >>
> >> - They're shorter.
> >
> > Either they're longer (md5sums of the message, or from /dev/random) or
> > else you likely get clashes when two patches adding new warnings are
>
> It's really not very hard. You add to the end of an enum. Every
> now and then there's a conflict, and someone has to go first; that's
> an easier merge than most and it will happen rarely.
I'm not really sure this will work so well. There might be gcc
branches with new warnings that are kicked along parallel to the
"main" gcc for years, and in that time, people either couldn't use the
warning numbers, or they'd have to change them at merge time.
--
Falk