This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" <fwyzard at inwind dot it>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, 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: 25 Jan 2003 05:54:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <EE552440-2FF1-11D7-BFA6-000393B2ABA2@apple.com><5.2.0.9.2.20030125013210.0265c8e0@popmail.libero.it>
"Andrea 'fwyzard' Bocci" <fwyzard@inwind.it> writes:
| 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 ?
CodeWarrior has been mentioned.
| Or does everyone just started with numbers, which are simpler to
| implement but less user firendly ?
I would tend to believe that; if you think about it, short options were
the way to go some ages ago, now we have long options :-)
-- Gaby