This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> > 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).
I think the best way to address your above comments is to refer to the
standard itself. Do a text search for "no diagnostic required". You
will see why your view (which is quite reasonable) does not apply for
the C++ standard.
[This is off-topic for the gcc mailing list, so I propose that if you
are interested on further discussion we should switch to private mail
or some C++-related group]
--
Oscar