This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 12:10:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- References: <200406211908.i5LJ8mCX027121@greed.delorie.com> <40D7CF2B.2030405@codesourcery.com> <200406221400.i5ME0QjE002663@greed.delorie.com> <40D85A29.9070503@codesourcery.com> <200406221714.i5MHEM6i005590@greed.delorie.com> <40D86E05.8070805@codesourcery.com> <200406221850.i5MIo2S0007045@greed.delorie.com> <40D88578.6080306@codesourcery.com> <200406242210.i5OMAwbp023722@greed.delorie.com> <40DBB1D7.6070108@codesourcery.com> <200406282056.i5SKu4oL029790@greed.delorie.com> <200407012126.i61LQfvU001865@greed.delorie.com> <40E576FF.6080807@codesourcery.com>
> I think passing the parameter to "error" is a good idea too.
The initial patch (mechanically adding "0" to all calls) is going to
be HUGE.
> For example, in the case that the user requests that diagnostics
> contain links back to the relevant standard, you could use the tag
> passed in to find that information. (At first, we will not have
> enough specificity to do that, but later...)
I was thinking that the value passed should be one of the OPT_*
values. I wonder how we would tie in error() calls with this, since
we normally don't have command line options for errors. I suppose we
could have options that don't correspond to command line options, or
some way of appending OPT_* values for non-option options (sigh).
Or perhaps a separate enum that starts with N_OPTS and counts up?
But yeah, I can see the benefit of having some ID tag passed with each
message, error or otherwise.