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

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
(650) 331-3385 x713

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