This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Warnings in the C++ Front-End and GCC in General
- To: mark at markmitchell dot com
- Subject: Re: Warnings in the C++ Front-End and GCC in General
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 00:35:33 -0600
- cc: egcs-patches at cygnus dot com, egcs at cygnus dot com, Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199809070744.AAA11440@smtp.earthlink.net>you write:
> First, two prefatory notes:
> o This message is being sent to both egcs and egcs-patches. The
> reason is that while it *is* a patch, it is also about a topic
> that bears more general discussion amongst GCC users as well as
> GCC developers. Therefore, if you are a GCC user, you should
> read on, stopping when the discussion of the actual changes
> o This message does not contain the complete patch checked in to the
> C++ front-end. The reason is that the patch is very large, and
> much of it is very repetitive. Therefore, only the "interesting"
> portions, and representative samples of the "boring" pieces, are
> included. You should *not* try to apply this patch to your
> source-tree, as you will not get the complete set of changes.
Can we avoid revamping this stuff until after the next gcc2 -> egcs
merge? It would be nice to have the internationalization code mostly
drop in without taking days of my time to resolve conflicts :-)
> This patch addresses a long-standing need in GCC: the ability to
> disable individual warnings. Until now, we have had the coarse
> -W/-Wall/-w switches, and the -Wno- switches for controlling certain
> categories of warnings. However, some warnings have not been under
> the control of individual switches. In fact, it does not make sense
> to add individual switches for each of the literally hundreds
> (thousands?) of diagnostics GCC can issue!
Well, I'm not so sure I agree this is needed or desirable. I'll go with
the group decision, but my gut tells me this isn't such a great idea.