Re: RFC: Named warnings

[Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>]

Robert Dewar wrote:-

> > 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.

Huh?

Neil.