This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: enumerate explicitly what is enabled by Wall
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 02:13:59 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: enumerate explicitly what is enabled by Wall
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> This certainly brings some nice benefits. There is, however, one use
>> case that I am worried about us losing by this change: When I started
>> to use GCC, and a few times thereafter, I went through the list of all
>> options below the -Wall description to see whether to explicitly add
>> some. Recently, in GCC terms ;-), a kind volunteer added a reference to
>> -Wall to relevant options. Are you confident this list is correct? In
>> that case, consider my comment moot, and this part of the patch is fine.
> Sorry, I cannot understand what you mean. Could you elaborate a bit
> further? I went to gcc/c-opts.c and checked that the list of options
> is correct.
This is about documentation: Previously, one could go to the manual,
read the description of -Wall and all options _not_ covered by -Wall
would be below that point. This won't be as easy with your patch,
will it? That said, if you are confident that all options implied
by -Wall are marked thusly, I have no objections to this aspect of
your patch which means the overall patch is fine.
> Actually, I have this little patch that is neutral (do not change
> behaviour), bootstrapped and regression tested. I didn't submit it
> because we are in stage3, but perhaps an exception can be made here.
> 2007-09-30 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <email@example.com>
> * c-opts.c(c_common_handle_option): -Wnontemplate-friend,
> -Wwrite-strings and -Wmultichar are enabled by default, so Wall
> enabling them is redundant. Don't check two times for c_dialect_cxx.
This looks more like a bug fix, really. Mark?