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


On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> 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
> >>inhibited.
> >
> >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:

Currently, -w is a nice easy quick way of shutting up all warnings
whenever they are getting in the way.  Let's keep it that way.

[ Most warnings are heuristic, so they misfire sometimes. ]


Segher


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