This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: gdr at acm dot org
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 20:15:02 -0400
- Subject: Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- References: <200406211908.i5LJ8mCX027121@greed.delorie.com> <40D7CF2B.2030405@codesourcery.com> <200406221400.i5ME0QjE002663@greed.delorie.com> <40D85A29.9070503@codesourcery.com> <200406221714.i5MHEM6i005590@greed.delorie.com> <40D86E05.8070805@codesourcery.com> <200406221850.i5MIo2S0007045@greed.delorie.com> <40D88578.6080306@codesourcery.com> <200406242210.i5OMAwbp023722@greed.delorie.com> <40DBB1D7.6070108@codesourcery.com> <200406282056.i5SKu4oL029790@greed.delorie.com> <200407012126.i61LQfvU001865@greed.delorie.com> <32923.::ffff:128.194.146.36.1088809907.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net>
> I don't think I believe in the warning0 thingy.
I didn't like that option myself.
> Taking warning() or error() isn't good either. What about
> issue_diagnostic()? If too long, take any verb for diagnostic.
You'd need a handful of them, to correspond to the handful of current
diagnostic routines (error, warn, fatal, info, debug, etc). We
already decided that a unified interface is bad (because such things
shouldn't be user controlled).
Plus, the idea is to make sure all the warnings are controllable, so
once done, nobody should be calling the old functions any more anyway.