Re: RFC: Named warnings

[dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)]

> o I think consideration should be made to turning many current warnings
>   into errors.  This will reduce the number of warnings we need to
>   control.  My experience writing my C parser is that I've made many
>   things that were warnings into errors.  Sure, you can warn and do
>   the obvious thing to accept the translation unit, but I tend to
>   lean towards making errors of things that are easily avoided
>   and not stylistic.  e.g. "inline int x;" is currently a warning,
>   and IMO should be an error.  Existing warnings like the struct cpp_reader
>   one in prototypes should of course remain a warning, as there is
>   nothing actually syntactically or semantically incorrect about the usage.

This seems like something that should only be done with a switch, since it
is clearly non-standard. I suppose you could put this under -pedantic, but
in that case you had better be sure that your new "incorrect" errors do not
discombobulate too many correct programs.