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-base-class-initializer (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 10 Jan 2007 04:43:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Wmissing-base-class-initializer (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
References: <6c33472e0701071303s1d476b45ke44b24caa131cb20@mail.gmail.com> <m364bfc0ho.fsf@zeus.integrable-solutions.net> <6c33472e0701091449x23305bccjd451589e7c7db@mail.gmail.com>

"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

| > Yes, -Wextra should be split into sub-options.  No, we should not end
| > up with a situation where there is a one-to-one and onto mapping
| > between the -W options and any single diagnostic message we spit.  If we
| > arrive there, then we have failed to properly keep our user interface
| > from leaking implementation details (that may vary over releases).
| 
| I don't see how we are leaking implementation details.

-Wambiguous-base-classes.

That stricks me as an attempt to name a warning after the message it
displays, as opposed to what it is trying to say.

-- Gaby

References:
- Wmissing-base-class-initializer (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez
- Re: Wmissing-base-class-initializer (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Wmissing-base-class-initializer (PR7651 Define -Wextra strictly in terms of other warning flags)
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez

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