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)?

* Segher Boessenkool:

> 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.

You mean, by putting -w towards the end of the command line?

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