This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 23:18:19 -0700
- Subject: Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200406211908.i5LJ8mCX027121@greed.delorie.com>
DJ Delorie wrote:
Ok, I've been given a chunk of time with which to work on this
Warnings should be referenced by mnemonic, not number. The mnemonicIn practice, the way you use this feature is that the copmiler prints
out identifiers with the messages:
should match the command line option.
warning #2515: ....
warning [a_long_mnemonic]: ...
and you copy that into your code.
I don't see this as a deal-breaker, but I think I'm on the other side of
Warning control should be documented as something that WILL changeThis I do see as a major issue.
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.
These must be stable across releases or people will be mightily
annoyed. This feature, once added, becomes part of the interface to
GCC. If you use the catalog approach, it's relatively easy to maintain
stability of numbers or mnemonics: always add to the end of the catalog,
and clear out -- but do not remove -- entries that you're no longer
using in the middle.
The "flexibility" we have now in our warning logic is probably a
mistake; it's part of why we have inconsistently worded messages
throughout the compiler. We should probably be trying to merge these
similar messages into a single message so they can be turned on/off easily.