This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 24 Jan 2003 12:54:46 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0301241129270.5267-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Mark Mitchell wrote:
|
| > So, in favor of numbers:
| >
| > - They're shorter.
|
| Either they're longer (md5sums of the message, or from /dev/random) or
| else you likely get clashes when two patches adding new warnings are
| reviewed in parallel, and both allocate the same number (if developers are
| expected to take them sequentially). It should be possible for multiple
| patches adding warnings to be reviewed and applied out of order (and for
| people to distribute patches not intended to be included in GCC CVS, and
| users to apply multiple such patches without conflicts).
Really, I believe this road is going to cause more trouble than with
named warning. Numbers may be short but they are also undescriptive
and if each time one reads a #pragma one has to consult a handbook,
then I don't believe thgat is a feature.
And really errno is not an example to replicate.
-- Gaby