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: lopezibanez at gmail dot com
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:22:45 -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> <xnr6uvfhep.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <6c33472e0612191903s3c6dab97ra45c9ab0df3bcd84@mail.gmail.com>

> Really? I was thinking about just 1. and the first part of 2 which
> is what I have seen in the testsuite. I don't want to sound
> pretentious so, please, believe when I saying that I am asking this
> sincerely: are those 3 points a requirement I have overlooked or is
> it a mere suggestion? I am a newbie, so I could have easily missed a
> testcase that implements point 3.

I was just making suggestions, and trying to explain what additional
logic could be tested; I'm not in charge of the testsuite.

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
- Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: DJ Delorie
- 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]