This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: where should C++ options be documented?
- From: Eric Gallager <egall at gwmail dot gwu dot edu>
- To: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:03:41 -0400
- Subject: Re: where should C++ options be documented?
- References: <email@example.com>
On 4/2/18, Martin Sebor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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).
> Should I try to make this happen for GCC 8?
This is bug 71283: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283