This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, ofv at wanadoo dot es
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:03:09 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
> The C++ standard, IIRC, says nothing about "warning" or "error"
> messages. It talks about "diagnostics". You can turn everything into
> warnings, always generate an object file and you are ok as far as the
> standard is concerned. What is a warning or an error is a QoI
> issue. OTOH, a good C++ compiler reports far many more diagnostics
> (errors and warnings) than the standard requires.
Yes, but you must at least have a mode where you generate diagnostics
only for those things which C++ declares as wrong. I do not agree that
a good C++ compiler generates more errors than the standard requires.
This seems totally wrong to me. A program that is correct by the rules
of the C++ standard should be able to compile diagnostic free in any
decent compiler (typically by turning off warnings).