Re: [PATCH] trigraphs

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>]

Matt Austern wrote:-

> I agree that turning off the warning unconditionally is a bad idea.  
> The real
> question is whether the warning should be turned on by -Wall or only if 
> the
> user explicitly uses -Wtrigraphs.
> 
> I claim that the latter makes more sense.  -Wall is supposed to be a
> collection of warnings that are appropriate for most users: the idea is
> that, in general, "good" code should compile clean under -Wall.  This
> doesn't apply to -Wtrigraphs.  The vast majority of users have no reason
> to care about trigraphs.  They are never going to use the -trigraphs 
> flag
> and have no reason to care what would happen in -trigraphs mode.
> 
> -Wtrigraphs makes sense for the small group of users who plan to
> compile their code both in -trigraphs and -no-trigraphs mode.  It 
> doesn't
> make sense to put such a specialized flag under the control of -Wall.

Can you give an example of code that triggers the warning you don't
like with -Wall?  I can only think that something in a string literal
would be relevant.

Unforunately I can't remember the many times this has been discussed
previously and all the people who might have wanted it on by default.
I know some people do.

Neil.