This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, kevin-tucker at cox dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, dodji at redhat dot com, dmalcolm at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 18:34:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160328142309 dot CKMHR dot 556080 dot imail at eastrmwml106> <87r3eul6ki dot fsf at mid dot deneb dot enyo dot de> <56F9B112 dot 6080704 at gmail dot com> <20160331163036 dot GA20004 at gate dot crashing dot org>
* 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
>> >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?