Re: Ping Ping Ping: [PATCH] RFA: Add a small indication to warnings that are promoted to errors

[Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Simon Baldwin wrote:
>
>> I have not suggested that -Werror no longer present warnings as
>> errors. ?The patch does not affect this any way.
>
> I understand that.
>
> I question whether it is necessary that users see an
> error-promoted-from-a-warning differently than an
> error-that-was-always-an-error.
>
> As I've indicated, if we do think it's necessary then:
>
>>> ?error: [WNNNN] <the message>

Or

error: [-Wfoobar] <the message>

?  I think we decided against numbers here at some point.

Which then raises the issue of warnings that do not have a flag
(yes, we still have these).  Thus,

error: [-no-w] <the message>

for them? Ugh.  Or [-Wno-foobar] and [-w]?  Or omit the [] for them?

> is my first choice. ?My second choice is to add [was warning] or,
> perhaps, [disable with -W] or [disable with -Wfoobar].

I'd be happy with a variant of your first choice (still prefering
error: warning: <the message> for simplicity, objecting to
appending [was warning] or similar stuff).

At least on the ground that your variant adds useful information
and is shorter than what we usually do here (a separate note:
diagnostic line).

Richard.

> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery
> mark@codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713
>