This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: where should C++ options be documented?
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:08:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: where should C++ options be documented?
- References: <fe0f9454-91c1-326d-0656-9c4a0c9c25d9@gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason,
>
> The manual mentions some C++-only options in the language
> independent section 3.8 Options to Request or Suppress
> Warnings and others in 3.5 Options Controlling C++ Dialect.
>
> For example, -Wcatch-value, -Wconditionally-supported,
> and -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant are mentioned only
> on the former page, while -Wabi-tag, -Wctor-dtor-privacy,
> -Wliteral-suffix, and -Wclass-memaccess are mentioned only
> on the latter.
>
> That makes C++ options harder to find than they should be.
> It also makes it difficult to tell which C++ options are
> included in -Wall or -Wextra. I think we should converge
> on the same approach for all C++ options that doesn't have
> these problems. What should it be?
>
> An approach that I think might work well is to continue
> to mention even C++-only options in 3.8 but move their
> descriptions to 3.5 (i.e., have the entry for each link
> to the full description of the option on the C++ page).
Sounds good.
> Should I try to make this happen for GCC 8?
Sure.
Jason