Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
 > 
 > The particular example of the warning that started this thread, about
 > ISO macros and a missing argument, *is* easily fixable if we track
 > where macros were defined (since it refers merely to the form of the
 > invocation of that macro).
 > 
 > > Geoff suggested fixincludes, but it would be a real pain to fix every
 > > macro that could potentially cause problems.  And some cases are a
 > > catch-22, e.g. what about UINT_MAX which contains a U suffix?  Using
 > > UINT_MAX in user code causes -Wtraditional to complain about the U,
 > > but without the U you get "decimal constant is so large it is
 > > unsigned" problems.  (Not that I would recommend getting rid of the U,
 > > just that either way we're hosed.)
 > 
 > I think people using -Wtraditional would have to accept the U suffix
 > warning - it is what they asked for, after all.  That warning is IMO
 > less important than the signedness one.  I don't think current
 > behaviour is particularly broken.

My point was not whether -Wtraditional users should accept U, it was
merely to point out that some warnings have inherent conflicts getting
down to zero.  Remember -Werror *requires* absolutely zero warnings on
every platform its used on to avoid breaking bootstrap.  Just one of
the obstacles are system header macros called in user code.

If we're having this much controversy over just one issue, I don't see
how we can ever turn on -Werror.

So... I reiterate that I favor the regression tester approach. :-)

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions