Re: Use "[warning enabled by default]" for default warnings

[Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Richard Sandiford
<rdsandiford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:
>> On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether.
>>> Tested as before.  OK to install?
>>
>> Still a huge earthquake in terms of affecting test suites and
>> baselines of many users. is it really worth it? In the case of
>> GNAT we have only recently started tagging messages in this
>> way, so changes would not be so disruptive, and we can debate
>> following whatever gcc does, but I think it is important to
>> understand that any change in this area is a big one in terms
>> of impact on users.
>
> The patch deliberately didn't affect Ada's diagnostic routines given
> your comments from the first round.  Calling this a "huge earthquake"
> for other languages seems like a gross overstatement.
>
> I don't think gcc, g++, gfortran, etc, have ever made a commitment
> to producing textually identical warnings and errors for given inputs
> across different releases.  It seems ridiculous to require that,
> especially if it stands in the way of improving the diagnostics
> or introducing finer-grained -W control.
>
> E.g. Florian's complaint was that we shouldn't have warnings that
> are not under the control of any -W options.  But by your logic
> we couldn't change that either, because all those "[enabled by default]"s
> would become "[-Wnew-option]"s.

Yeah, I think Roberts argument is a red herring - there are loads of
diagnostic changes every release so you cannot expect those to
be stable.

I'm fine with dropping the [enabled by default] as in the patch, but lets
hear another "ok" before making the change.

Thanks,
Richard.

> Thanks,
> Richard