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: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 19 Dec 2006 21:08:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612200120070.556@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <6c33472e0612191749g1510c8a9u606508b2d461e4c0@mail.gmail.com>

"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:
> I would say that it is not a new warning but...whatever, OK, I
> withdraw the patch and I will resubmit with its corresponding new
> testcases.

It's not a new warning, but it is a new *option*.  You'll need test
cases that test various cases:

1. No option specified
2. Option on (warn), option off (no warn)
3. Option on, marked as an error, marked as a warning overriding -Werror

etc.

It's the command line processing that you're testing, not just the
code that recognizes the warning in the code.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez
- Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez

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