This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Subject: Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:33:16 -0700
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200109051909.PAA24754@caip.rutgers.edu>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 03:09:04PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> >
> > Not true. -Werror turns _all_ warnings into errors.
> > zw
>
> Hmm, I tested it in 3.1 and 2.95.3 and you're right. Well, that
> certainly puts a monkey wrench into my plan.
>
> Since these are intractable as you say, what if we applied the
> __extension__ keyword to these strings? Since they are from -pedantic
> that would eliminate the warning, and thus the hard error when using
> -Werror, right?
No, the error issues from the tokenizer, which doesn't know anything
about __extension__, nor should it (it would have to understand the
expression grammar then).
These are not warnings we want to ignore, either. Those strings
really are too long to be safe.
Please, can we stop trying to paper over the problems and _fix_ them?
zw