This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Add -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local.
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 05:39 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 00:00 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> I wonder about spelling the options as
> >> -Wshadow={local,compatible-local} rather than with a dash, but
> >> otherwise the patch looks fine.
> >
> > That is a much nicer way to write the option. But if I do that I would
> > like to keep the old names as aliases because Google already ships a gcc
> > that accepts -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local and you can
> > find programs that already probe for those names in their configure
> > scripts. Can I make the existing names hidden aliases by marking them
> > Undocumented in the .opt file? Or is that too contrived/ugly?
>
> I don't have any opinion as to what the option names should be, but I
> don't see the fact that Google's GCC has different option names as a
> concern. That GCC is only used within Google
Google did release a gcc with those warning options (I believe as part
of the NDK) and there are various projects out there (firefox seems one
of them) that check to see if these options are available before
enabling/disabling them (I don't know if other compilers implemented
them). Given that there are public sources out there that already seem
to use/test for these option names I would prefer to keep the
compatibility.
Cheers,
Mark