Re: where should C++ options be documented?

[David Brown <david at westcontrol dot com>]

On 03/04/18 03:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> The manual mentions some C++-only options in the language
> independent section 3.8 Options to Request or Suppress
> Warnings and others in 3.5 Options Controlling C++ Dialect.
> 
> For example, -Wcatch-value, -Wconditionally-supported,
> and -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant are mentioned only
> on the former page, while -Wabi-tag, -Wctor-dtor-privacy,
> -Wliteral-suffix, and -Wclass-memaccess are mentioned only
> on the latter.
> 
> That makes C++ options harder to find than they should be.
> It also makes it difficult to tell which C++ options are
> included in -Wall or -Wextra.  I think we should converge
> on the same approach for all C++ options that doesn't have
> these problems.  What should it be?
> 
> An approach that I think might work well is to continue
> to mention even C++-only options in 3.8 but move their
> descriptions to 3.5 (i.e., have the entry for each link
> to the full description of the option on the C++ page).
> 
> Should I try to make this happen for GCC 8?
> 
> Martin
> 

What about the C only options?  If the C++ specific options get their
own page, perhaps so should the C specific options (like "-Wimplicit")?
 There are not as many of them, however.

(Ideally, IMHO, warning flags that only apply to one language should be
silently accepted and ignored by the other languages.  That would
simplify my makefiles :-) )