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: 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]