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: aoliva at redhat dot com
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:22:09 -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> <orzn6eduo7.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
> We could support controlling whether certain constructs are to be
> flagged with errors, warnings or nothing. But then, we'd probably
> want to make the decision in the caller.
Right. The ones we can let the user decide for, are already
warning(). The ones that are error() are cases that must error out.
The question is, of what use can the id tag be for messages that must
error out anyway? Documentation hooks have been mentioned.