This is the mail archive of the 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: Ping Ping Ping: [PATCH] RFA: Add a small indication to warnings that are promoted to errors

Richard Guenther wrote:

>> 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.

I didn't, but we may have. :-)

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

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

Omit the [] for them.

> 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).

I couldn't quite parse that, but "error: warning:" just seems like a
sign of confusion on the part of the compiler.  We have to also take
into account a user who is typing "make" or using an IDE and doesn't
know that -Werror is in effect.  Random goop in brackets is only
slightly confusing, whereas ambiguity about whether something is an
error or a warning is much more confusing.

Mark Mitchell
(650) 331-3385 x713

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