This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?
- From: <kevin-tucker at cox dot net>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: dodji at redhat dot com, dmalcolm at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:23:09 -0400
- Subject: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: cox.net; none
- Sensitivity: Normal
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!