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: enable fdiagnostics-show-option by default

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <> writes:
>> This would add to the substantial amount of output, especially if the
>> warnings are repeated.
> This is a valid concern...
>> I would prefer this behaviour to be configurable at configure-time, so that
>> users or packagers can decide which behaviour is
> ...however, I don't think this would be a good approach. ?I don't
> think this is the kind of thing which should be controlled on a
> user-by-user basis.

Why not?  After all, the patch is changing the current default and users
who want to have the old default would have to do it in a user-by-user basis.

The suggestion of configuration-time basis is that it is done for all
at configuration time -- either by the packagers, or by the user
who built the compiler.  That is better than the current behaviour, and less
disruptive than what the current patch proposes.

> ?If we think that the majority of users--in
> particular, the majority of naïve users--would be helped by this
> change, then I think we should make it, and let the minority run gcc
> via a shell script.

How do we measure that?
We are talking about changing a default that has been there for ages.

> Many compilers have some sort of code attached to their warning
> messages. ?This would be gcc's equivalent to that.

Note that I am not saying that there should not be any annotation to
diagnostic messages. We are discussing what the defaults should be
and how they are enabled.

> Ian

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