This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: -Wswitch-enum and -Wswitch-default

From: "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
To: "Ching, Jimen (US SSA)" <jimen dot ching at baesystems dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:34:39 +0100
Subject: Re: -Wswitch-enum and -Wswitch-default
References: <5712874E51C67B4E8BE9408DED619D7A43943F@blums0015.bluelnk.net> <6c33472e0703310729i57e67f40p550f11ff9a072236@mail.gmail.com> <5712874E51C67B4E8BE9408DED619D7A4394A8@blums0015.bluelnk.net>

On 02/04/07, Ching, Jimen (US SSA) <jimen.ching@baesystems.com> wrote:

> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of
> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are.

Note; a bunch of -W options has the sentence "This warning is enabled by -Wall".
But there are a few that doesn't, but they are in the "All of the above" list.  Perhaps
the description for -Wall shouldn't include "All of the above '-W' options combined".
Or move the descriptions that doesn't include the "This warning is enabled by -Wall"
below the -Wall description.


No, it shouldn't. I think it should include just a list of options
enabled by it á la -O1, -O2, etc.

It is confusing to read "All of the above" when it doesn't mean all of the above.

You are completely right.

Cheers,

Manuel.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -Wswitch-enum and -Wswitch-default
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- RE: -Wswitch-enum and -Wswitch-default
  - From: Ching, Jimen \(US SSA\)

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]