This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Jun 2004 20:25:42 -0700
- Subject: Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- References: <200406211908.i5LJ8mCX027121@greed.delorie.com>
DJ Delorie <email@example.com> writes:
> Warning control should be documented as something that WILL change
> from release to release of the compiler; users should expect such
> controls to be a "last chance" option, and any attempt to make the
> system easier for long-term use should be discouraged. I.e.
> complaints that the #pragma to silence warning "foo" changed in this
> gcc release will be ignored.
I don't think you can really do that. People *will* end up with huge
source bases with thousands of these #pragmas that are built with
-Werror (after all, isn't that the point of this feature?) and will
want to upgrade their compiler. It needs to be at least as stable
as command-line flags are now.