This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [warnings] tagging warnings about options themselves


Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> writes:

| DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
| 
| > Also, I was thinking about messages like these:
| > 
| >   warning (0, "command line option \"%s\" is valid for %s but not for %s",
| > 	   text, ok_langs, bad_lang);
| > 
| >   warning (0, "switch %qs is no longer supported", option->opt_text);
| > 
| >   warning (0, "unrecognized gcc debugging option: %c", c);
| > 
| > How about a -Woptions warning?
| 
| You mean, an option to control whether the compiler warns about
| options?  Personally I think this is going a bit overboard.  I can see

Indeed, my fear  -- often repeated -- is a multiplication of options
just about everything.  That would become unmanageable.

| the advantage to being able to control every warning which can be
| produced by source code.  But these are bring produced based solely on
| the command line and, I suppose, the specs file.  I don't think we
| need an option to control warnings about what options you use.  But
| maybe I'm missing something.

I can see *why* people would like to, but I don't think it is necessary.

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]