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

> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:25:07 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <>
> > >Also, -O[23] tends to confuse this as they defer the use of warning
> > >flags until after the whole file is parsed, so pragmas between
> > >function definitions don't do what you expect :-(
> >
> > I'm not sure what to say about the problem in the last paragraph; that's 
> > clearly a serious user interface issue.  This is part of why I have long 
> > argued that only front ends should be permitted to issue warnings, and 
> > that all attempts to use back-end data flow analysis to issue warnings 
> > are mistaken, no matter how clever they seem.
> Barring huge changes in the design of the internals of gcc, I'm happy
> with documenting that such pragmas should come before any functions in
> the source or else they may not apply.  That's in line with the "the
> user shouldn't be doing this unless they absolutely have to" theory.

Putting on my user hat --

I have for years wanted the ability to turn individual warnings off
for small parts of a file.  If I have to put the pragma before all
the functions -- i.e., if it applies to the whole file, nothing
smaller -- then I don't think it's worth the effort to implement it.

Seriously.  We already have a solution to that problem -- it's
modifying the command line switches used to compile the file.  If the
warning pragma applies to an entire file, I don't think we'll bother
to use it.  If it applies to individual functions, we might use it.
If it applies to individual lines (i.e., arbitrary code until the next
pragma that changes it or the end of the file), we will use it.

Just my $0.02.

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