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]

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

On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez 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

I think -w is ordered with respect to the other warning obtions, and
-w inhibits previously requested warnings, and future -W flags may
enable other warnings.  With this in mind, I agree that the current
GCC behavior is consistent and probably not a bug.

The general rule of thumb documented in the manual is that more
specific options take precedence over more general ones, regardless
of where they appear on the command line:

  The combined effect of positive and negative forms [of warning
  options] is that more specific options have priority over less
  specific ones, independently of their position in the command-

The manual doesn't give an exhaustive list of the more general
options but it mentions -Wall and -Wextra as examples.  I would
tend to view -w as another such example and, like the reporter,
expect "-Werror=return-type -w" to disable all warnings but treat
-Wreturn-type as an error.


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