This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
- Cc: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:19:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
What did you do about warnings added on different development branches?
This, and your other arguments, are good ones.
But they don't persuade me.
It's not that I disagree with your logic; just that I weight things
differently. For example, you could map mnemonics to the numbers
in a (natural)-language dependent way; in English "mark-moron" could
be a synonym for "123", but in French you could use something else.
That would let you have both ways, perhaps.
My claim is very simple: this is a bigger can of worms than it looks
like, and numbers are a relatively simple, time-tested solution; one
that we know from experience can be made to work, both for users and
for implementors.
I'll not stand in the way of the mnemonic approach, but I'd suggest
we leave ourselves maximum wiggle room. The approach I suggest above
would let us try out both ways of doing things.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com