This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)


 > From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
 > 
 > 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).

Er, I just tried it and it works...


 > 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

Well that's a separate question.  I don't know of any way short of
rewriting the whole specs stuff that Neil was suggesting.  I'm not
generally in favor of papering over things, but at the same time I
don't think -Werror should necessarily bottleneck on a specs
implementation rewrite if a simple workaround is available and the
long term solution is on someone else's todo list.

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]