This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Named warnings
neil@daikokuya.co.uk (Neil Booth) wrote on 24.01.03 in <20030124071454.GB19069@daikokuya.co.uk>:
> Stan Shebs wrote:-
>
> > So as a first step I propose that all of GCC's warnings be made
> > individually controllable, and that all future warnings always get a
> > control when they are added to the compiler.
>
> I support this in principle, but I think making each warning
> controllable is too fine-grained.
Getting that fine-grained control is one of the reasons - possibly *the*
main reason - people are pushing for this feature!
> o I agree with Matt that push / pop is necessary
Yes, though it could at least partly be "hidden" by automatically doing it
with the block structure.
> o I think consideration should be made to turning many current warnings
> into errors. This will reduce the number of warnings we need to
> control.
I agree with whoever it was who said that warnings and errors shoiuld be
handled as essentially the same thing in this.
MfG Kai