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

DJ Delorie wrote:

Ok, I've been given a chunk of time with which to work on this


Warnings should be referenced by mnemonic, not number. The mnemonic
should match the command line option.

In practice, the way you use this feature is that the copmiler prints out identifiers with the messages:

warning #2515: ....


warning [a_long_mnemonic]: ...

and you copy that into your code.

I don't see this as a deal-breaker, but I think I'm on the other side of this one.

Warning control should be documented as something that WILL change
from release to release of the compiler; users should expect such
controls to be a "last chance" option, and any attempt to make the
system easier for long-term use should be discouraged. I.e.
complaints that the #pragma to silence warning "foo" changed in this
gcc release will be ignored.

This I do see as a major issue.

These must be stable across releases or people will be mightily annoyed. This feature, once added, becomes part of the interface to GCC. If you use the catalog approach, it's relatively easy to maintain stability of numbers or mnemonics: always add to the end of the catalog, and clear out -- but do not remove -- entries that you're no longer using in the middle.

The "flexibility" we have now in our warning logic is probably a mistake; it's part of why we have inconsistently worded messages throughout the compiler. We should probably be trying to merge these similar messages into a single message so they can be turned on/off easily.

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304

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