Re: PATCH: Wno-warning-directives [WasRe: cpplib: Start moving ...]

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 09:19:29AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> If the consensus turns out to be that we should ignore #warning in
> system headers (contrary to my opinion, but I've been in the minority
> plenty of times before!) then we should just make that the unconditional
> behavior.
> 
> (There is, by the way, probably already a workaround: use explicit -I
> directives to find these headers as ordinary headers, not as system
> headers.  Not to mention fixincludes, which is what we usually use for
> OS headers that are unusable with GCC.)

Not to rain on your parade, but we just checked in a patch that makes
your suggested workaround not work anymore (the this-time-for-sure fix
for those annoying 'changing search order' warnings).

While in general I agree with you that we have too many options, I
think that additional warning-control options are not nearly as
problematic as others, since they are usually simple to implement,
easy to document, have narrowly defined semantics, and do not affect
code generation at all (modulo bugs).  As long as we don't have a
general mechanism for disabling individual warnings, I'm inclined to
accede to requests for more finegrained -W options.

zw