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

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:
> 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.

I believe I agree with 'error: warning: ' prefix being confusing.
I'm fine with any of [was warning] or, perhaps, [disable with -W]
or [disable with -Wfoobar].

-- Gaby

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