This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:42:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: named warnings & individual warning control
- References: <200406211908.i5LJ8mCX027121@greed.delorie.com> <40D7CF2B.2030405@codesourcery.com> <200406221400.i5ME0QjE002663@greed.delorie.com> <40D85A29.9070503@codesourcery.com> <200406221714.i5MHEM6i005590@greed.delorie.com> <40D86E05.8070805@codesourcery.com> <200406221850.i5MIo2S0007045@greed.delorie.com> <40D88578.6080306@codesourcery.com> <200406242210.i5OMAwbp023722@greed.delorie.com> <40DBB1D7.6070108@codesourcery.com> <200406282056.i5SKu4oL029790@greed.delorie.com> <200407012126.i61LQfvU001865@greed.delorie.com> <40E576FF.6080807@codesourcery.com> <200407021610.i62GAMLG011936@greed.delorie.com>
> The initial patch (mechanically adding "0" to all calls) is going to
> be HUGE.
And I was right. 147 files changed, 2678 calls, 32,723 line patch
(1Mb). Should I omit the mechanical foo( -> foo(0, portions of the
patch, post the whole thing, put it on a web site somewhere, or what?
Also, warning() is defined in a couple of places. I didn't touch the
one in collect2 but I did touch the one in errors.h (for gen* I
think). There's a standalone file in java/* that has its own too.
Should I, for consistency, tweak those too? They'd never have
anything other than zero passed I think.
I also skipped the conversion of a number of GCC_BAD macros that call
warning(), for now. The patch was huge enough as-is without getting
complicated too ;-)