This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:28:53 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> 2) a parent which describes basically the class of warnings
> to which it belongs.
Warnings don't belong to a simple single class. Some warnings may be
enabled by more than one present composite option. Some are controlled by
C standard mode (mandatory for C99, controlled by some -W option for C90;
or mandatory for C90, always off for C99). A good implementation scheme
should have a -Wc89 option (which warns for all the cases presently warned
for if (pedantic && !flag_isoc99), but makes those warnings be warning()
rather than pedwarn() - needed (as well as a complete C99 implementation)
before C99 mode can become default) fall out naturally from the
implementation.
What's intended to be done about selective _enabling_ of format warnings,
where the relevant code is only executed at all if -Wformat is used? (At
present selective options such as -Wformat-extra-args give a warning that
they have no effect.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk