This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Use "[warning enabled by default]" for default warnings
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:08:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: Use "[warning enabled by default]" for default warnings
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87eh3c3vl1 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <20140209200926 dot GA4940 at adacore dot com> <52F7E0D2 dot 3070307 at adacore dot com> <87zjm02fy5 dot fsf at talisman dot default> <52F7E578 dot 8010805 at adacore dot com> <CAFiYyc1a6sQxvEkQ55gFwLM8qt81wKsGgLZX-VzHs9anH4WLUg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87zjlydltr dot fsf at talisman dot default> <52FA11E2 dot 4050708 at adacore dot com> <87d2itn7b8 dot fsf at sandifor-thinkpad dot stglab dot manchester dot uk dot ibm dot com> <CAFiYyc2JiCNTcxLC6qvQVWp0A2O7b2yvprUC7b0JEs4O8=fBEw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think this change is OK.
It's obviously not a great situation, but "enabled by default" is
fairly useless information, so this seems like a marginal improvement.
Ian