This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Michael S. Zick <mszick at goquest dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar),gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:57:58 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- References: <20030124121533.3B6FEF2DBF@nile.gnat.com>
On Friday 24 January 2003 06:15 am, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I must say my reaction is that the very fine control over warnings seems
> a bit of overkill, but perhaps there is more of a problem with "bad"
> warnings in g++ and gnu c than in gnat (I don't have the experience to make
> that judgment). In GNAT, we group warnings under about 10 different
> categories that can be separately controlled by either compile time
> switches or by pragmas that can turn on and off these various categories of
> warnings. In addition we have a general facility for turning warnings on
> and off with pragmas (all warnings). This has proved quite adequate, and in
> fact we have not had any requests at all to provide any more specific
> control.
>
> The trouble with over-specific control is that warning messages are the
> sort of thing that change frequently as they are improved and sharpened,
> and you don't want to have people chasing after them by dealing with
> new warning codes that now appear in the text of the program.
>
The use of warning codes brings to mind a horrid image -
Numbered warnings could lead to the same sort of problems that are
present with changing ABI's -
The source might have to be preceeded by:
-Wversion=Oct-1802
or
-Wversion=Jan-2003
Just to get an old source (with an old warning scheme) through
a compiler with a new(?) warning scheme.
Mike