Re: PR 30437 [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] -Wno-all is rejected (try 2)

[FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>]

> I see that you committed this change without approval
> from a fortran maintainer nor approval from someone
> with global write privileges.

About write privilege: I would note nonetheless that Gabriel is  
listed as "diagnostic messages" maintainer, which is one of the  
reasons why I did not felt compelled to review the patch: I checked  
because it seemed weird to see someone not involved in the Fortran  
front-end development in particular approve a Fortran-only patch,  
even though it had influence on other front-ends.

Now, there's also the issue about the correctness and need of the  
patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01456.html):

> IMHO, this patch was incorrect and unnecesary.

From what I see, there are three options to fix the problem:
  1. move -Wall to common.opt; I don't know why it would be so  
difficult to do, but apparently Manuel tried and failed to work it out
  2. what was done: make gfortran accept -Wall and -Wno-all
  3. remove the RejectNegative keyword in fortran/lang.opt so that  
other front-ends don't choke on it, and declare that we don't want  
the negative form to be used in gfortran and explicitly add an error  
in that case

It's worthy to note that behaviour 2. doesn't change the current  
documented behaviour of gfortran in the case already accepted (- 
Wall), while it enables the negative form in the most logical way.

Now, for my personal opinion: I don't understand the reason of -Wno- 
all, except maybe for completeness. I'd feel better with option 3,  
but I could well understand a general agreement that "gfortran acting  
the same as other front-ends" is reason enough to go with option 2.

So, Steve, would you mind explaining a bit your statement about  
"incorrect and uncesseray"? It's not a trap or a trick question, I  
just don't understand what you can mean by that.

Thanks,
FX