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: Add a __nowarn__ keyword


On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > If we go with __nowarn__ (or __warn__) I believe the syntax is well
> > defined since it mimics the long-standing __extension__ behavior.  It
> > cleanly handles the push/pop paradigm because the handler code resides in
> > the parser.  Any time it sees the __extesion__ or __nowarn__ token, the
> > parser saves the current value of the warning flag, consumes the token and
> > recurses parsing.  When the recursion returns, it restores the old value
> > of the warning flag in question and proceeds.  Simple.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this work in exactly the same set
> of cases where DJ's pragmas would work?  They're the cases that don't
> care about his #2.

Maybe I don't understand your question, but the keyword vs pragma styles
clearly do not work in the same set of cases.  At least, if by "cases" you
mean: locations in code where they can be placed and affect.  If by
"cases" you mean: which warnings they can effectively silence, that I
don't know.  I think both mechanisms have holes in warning coverage that
don't necessarily overlap.

Which interpretation did you mean?

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu


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