This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: RFC: Named warnings

From: "Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" <fwyzard at inwind dot it>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:34:27 +0100
Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
References: <EE552440-2FF1-11D7-BFA6-000393B2ABA2@apple.com>

At 15.21 24/01/2003 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:

What do we know about prior art for other compilers?  At the

That's a large part of why I'm advocating numbers.

All the prior art I know of (which includes at least EDG, Borland,
Microsoft, several versions of Lint, and CenterLine error-checking
products) used numbers.

Does anyone knows of a compiler which at least *tried* to use mnemonics instead of numbers ?
Or does everyone just started with numbers, which are simpler to implement but less user firendly ?

Just curious...
fwyzard

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: Named warnings
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- Re: RFC: Named warnings
  - From: Matt Austern
- Re: RFC: Named warnings
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]