Re: Question about new warning system

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> As pointed out by JSM yesterday, it is not clear whether [1] should be
> preferred over [2] or the converse.  I think having two ways to
> control the same diagnostic is a bit confusing.  I think the

I'm inclined to agree it is confusing. especially as in one place one has to 
write warn_<foo> and in the other place one writes OPT_W<foo>.  It'd be nice if 
one just wrote
   if (warn_foo && frobbed)
     warning ("foo is frobbed");

I don't care if it's spelt warn_foo, OPT_Wfoo, warning_p(foo) or whatever, so 
long as it's spelt only one way.  The 'warning (OPT_Wfoo, ...)' syntax helps 
only where there is no conditional before the warning -- how often does that 
occur?  The way it currently is, one runs the risk of writing
	if (warn_c_cast
  	    && .....
	    && .....
	    && .....)
	  warning (OPT_Wconst_cast, ...)

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk