This is the mail archive of the 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: named warnings & individual warning control

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 04:04:23PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I believe that was the consensus.  There should also, if memory
> > serves, be a tie-in to the other levels of diagnostics.  Possibly
> > also an in-source control on the warning threshold.
> You mean "consider N warnings to itself be an error"?

No, I mean -- with reference to the levels in diagnostic.def -- controls
along the lines of

    #pragma GCC in this code I'm only intested in errors


    #pragma GCC in this code I'm only intested in errors and warnings


    #pragma GCC and now I'm back to normal:  errors, warnings, notes,
        anachronisms, severe weather announcements, specials at the
        local grocery, etc

An analogy for people familiar with sysadmining or daemon programming
might be the syslog-style kind of severity thresholds.  Naturally, that's
not always appropriate for a compiler (ignoring an ICE is just not gonna
happen, as much as we wish we could do so), but -- introducing an opinion
now -- I think there is room for more than two levels (warning or error)
of diagnostic.

However, that all falls under feature rather than requirements.  Just
something to think about.

"What attribute do you consider most valuable to the politician?"
"To be able to raise a cause which shall produce an effect, and
then *fight the effect*."
    - Captain T.W.S. Kidd and Senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln

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