This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
DJ Delorie <email@example.com> writes:
> > status_warning (status, "%s does not support the %<%%%c%> %s format",
> > WARNTYPE_unsupported_std,
> Yeah, that was basically the compromise Mark and I talked about.
> I slightly favor putting the new WARNTYPE_* option before the string,
> rather than between the string and its parameters, just to keep the
> string and its parameters together.
> I also slightly favor avoiding the word "type" in something with such
> an ingrained idea of what a "type" is. WARNGROUP might be less
> Alternately, a string representation of the option could be passed,
> but that would slow the lookup down.
On the other hand, a string representation would make it easier to
build a heirarchy. And the strings would be fixed for a given
instantiation of the compiler, so it would be possible to perfect hash
them. But I don't feel very strongly either way.