Re: diagnostic.c reorganization

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:

| I think we're getting carried away here.

I do not believe so.

|  This is supposed to be a
| short description of the function for the comment above it, not a
| detailed discussion of the rationale for its use.

I understand that.  But I do not believe it is a sufficient reason to
put inaccurate comments in, that is why I commented on the patch as
the diagnostic maintainer. 

|  I propose to put just
| 
|    A "pedantic" warning: issues a warning unless -pedantic-errors was
|    given on the command line, in which case it issues an error.  Use
|    this for diagnostics required by the relevant language standard,
|    if you have chosen not to make them errors.
| 
|    Note that these diagnostics are issued independent of the setting
|    of the -pedantic command-line switch.  To get a warning enabled
|    only with that switch, write "if (pedantic) pedwarn (...);"

This is OK.

| Now, since you, Gabriel, have strong opinions on this subject, and

It is not a matter of having strong opinions.

| furthermore you understand the diagnostic.c API in its full detail,
| would you care to write up complete documentation of diagnostic.c for
| the internals manual?  That would be an appropriate place to discuss
| when diagnostics should be errors, pedwarns, or plain warnings.

That makes sense.

-- Gaby