This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: warning: no newline at end of file


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zack Weinberg 
> Sent: 16 July 2004 08:32

> "Dave Korn" writes:

> > [  Note that this patch isn't a submission because I'm 
> fairly sure I'm not
> > using the correct option-parsing mechanism; I'm sure I 
> should be adding a
> > case to the switch statement in xxxxx, rather than manually 

  Heh.  Meant to say 'c_common_decode_option', not 'xxxxx', but I forgot to
go back and do the cut'n'paste.

> copying a global
> > in c_common_post_options.  Oh, and I didn't update the docs 
> either.  Both
> > these things would need doing properly in a real patch.  
> However, it does
> > the job in a QUAD fashion.  ]
> 
> You want to be editing c.opt, which will give you a new OPT_thingy
> enumerator that you can add to the switch statement in c-opts.c.  The
> code for that switch clause should set the flag in the cpplib options
> structure directly (several other such clauses do this already); then
> you needn't introduce a new global.

  Gotcha.  Waittaminnit!  c.opt?  What's c.opt?  I haven't got that in
3.3.x!  LOL.  Ok, I see from CVS that it's new.  Even more amusingly:

Revision 1.2 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Sun Jun 1
18:24:08 2003 UTC (13 months, 2 weeks ago) by neil 
Branch: MAIN 
Changes since 1.1: +2 -0 lines
Diff to previous 1.1 (colored) 
	* Makefile.in (c-options.c, c-options.h): Parallel make safe.
	* c.opt: End in blank line.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Now that's irony!  So, where did this stuff used to live?  Ah,
COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS.
 
> I am of the opinion that, since we don't have a generic fine-grained
> warning control mechanism (yet), all user requests for new -W switches
> should be honored.  Therefore, I'm agreed with your patch in 
> principle.
> 
> zw

  Subject to the refactoring described above (and reworking it against HEAD
and adding a docs patch and changelog, of course)?  I'd better get a move on
and sort out my paperwork then.

    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


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