This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ping Ping Ping: [PATCH] RFA: Add a small indication to warnings that are promoted to errors
Michael Matz wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> People will get used to it, and tools can parse it easily, while appending
> "[was warning]" seems like a terrible idea.
We can of course agree to disagree. Without a controlled test of real
users we cannot be sure which will be more confusing. But, I find it
likely that when a naive user sees "error: warning: ..." they will be
unsure whether they are looking at an error or a warning.
If we cannot agree, then I suggest we simply leave things as they are.
People who turn on -Werror will see errors; if they want to know which
ones are warnings, then can turn off -Werror and compile again.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713