This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 40989: Fix Wimplicit
On 1 May 2010 17:05, Gabriel Dos Reis <dosreis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem here is that group options (options that enable other
>> options) are not handled correctly when enabled by -Werror=. The
>> following patch fixes this issue for Wimplicit but also adds the
>> infrastructure to fix it for all other options. When
>> enabling/disabling an option, we should always use the new
>> process_option function.
>>
>> In the future, we should be able to generate the calls to
>> process_option automatically from the .opt files.
>>
>> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK?
>
> -Wimplicit actually does not make sense for C++, so C++ should not
> be named here (and I guess ObjC++ by extension.)
Sure.
> It seems to me that this is warning is valid only for the C-family language.
> Rename 'lang_mask' to 'c_family_mask' or 'c_family_lang_mask'.
Ok.
> the addition of the name 'process_option' to 'handle_option' is a bit confusing.
> I would suggest to rename process_option to broadcast_user_option.
broadcast sounds a bit strange. I think process_option should be named
handle_option because it is the parent of all the language-specific
and target-specific handle_option functions.
The current handle_option reads an option from the command line (from
argv), so I would rename it to read_cmdline_option. This change is
very minor, because this function is only used in opts.c and called
only once.
In summary, the new function for handling an option in general would
be handle_option, whereas the function for reading an option from the
command line would be read_cmdline_option. What do you think about
this?
Cheers,
Manuel.