This is the mail archive of the 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]

Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez reports that even though he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void function, due to the presence of the "-w" option.  He points out that clang++ wtill flags the promoted warning even though warnings are inhibited.

I'm thinking that not reporting the promoted error is the correct and desired behavior, based on two factors:
1) Warnings are inhibited, so there is no warning to promote.

2) The comment in diagnostic.c which reads:
/* Give preference to being able to inhibit warnings, before they
     get reclassified to something else.  */

I was looking at this issue as one I could use to get my feet wet in GCC maintenance , and would be glad to take on if it is decided that it is 
desired, which I would argue that it is not, but I thought I'd open up discussion on the topic.

I have worked on the MIcrochip PIC18 C compiler, and worked for DDC-I, supporting their compiler suites,(Ada, C/C++) as well as some work on the ASIS standard, and thought it might be fun to work on GCC.

Looking forward to reading discussion on the topic!

Kevin Tucker

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