This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Wmissing-parameter-type (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)


On 22/12/06, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:

> I am just bootstrapping and testing the patch including the testcases > that you suggest. But still it makes me wonder why me and why now.

The -Werror breakout is new.  I had to do this for the options I did
(some of the attribute options), so I get to complain that you need to ;-)


I think I am not communicating as well as I should. I am going to implement the testcases suggested by Jsm as requested by Gabriel, namely, -Wnew-option enabling warning, -Wextra enabling warning, -Wextra -Wno-new-option disabling the warning. I am not going to test that -Werror generates an error instead of a warning. That is what I understood that was asked for. If I misunderstood it, please correct me and accept my apologies.

Unfortunately, you cut out the other tests mentioned in my mail that
we don't do and make more sense than testing Werror for every single
warning option.

Cheers,

Manuel.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]