warning: trigraph ... ignored - again

[H. Peter Anvin]

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> Peter Anvin writes:
> > I think you seriously need to re-think your design.  You have broken old
> > behaviour and bundled a low-priority warning with a high-priority
> > warning that can't be switched on or off as a group.  I think that's a
> > major lose.
> 
> How so?  Once Zack fixes things so that there are no warnings about
> trigraphs in comments, then the only way you'll see a warning is if
> you have a trigraph in the actual source code, and this trigraph changes
> the meaning of the program.  Not alerting the user to such a condition
> when the user has said "-Wall" would be wrong.  It is not a low-priority
> warning at all.  And the warning you are currently seeing for the
> trigraph in the comment will disappear.
> 

It doesn't change the meaning of the program, because I have, very
explicitly, turned the abominations called trigraphs *OFF*.  I don't
care one bit if it never compiles with a non-gcc compiler ever again,
because it has 2^n other gcc extensions to the language.

Thus, warning about an ignored trigraph is just a nuisance warning. 
However, if someone ever went ahead and put in -ansi (which implies
-trigraph) in the Makefile without knowing this, I would want it to
issue some pretty stern warnings about the trigraphs now being
recognized.

I don't care what you include in -Wall, but I don't want these two, very
different, warnings to be bundled together.  Split it into -Wtrigraphs
and -Wignored-trigraphs or something... that way I can do

	-Wall -Wno-trigraphs-ignored

It would also be nice, again, to have a -no-trigraphs option as the
contrapositive to -trigraphs.  gcc is usually very good about providing
on and off switches for all options (except, perhaps, bulk options like
-ansi); this one is an unfortunate exception.

	-hpa


-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt