Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

Manuel López-Ibáñez
Fri Apr 1 14:20:00 GMT 2016

On 01/04/16 04:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
> At the same time, having the ability to do what PR 70275 asks for
> (i.e., suppress only warnings that have not be been explicitly
> enabled or elevated to errors) can be handy as well.  If it's
> preferable to keep -w unchanged, providing a new option to do it
> might be worth considering.

Some users have asked for -Weverything in the past (to turn on all possible 
warnings unless a more specific -Wno- option is provided). Perhaps 
-Wno-everything should do the opposite: turn off all warnings unless a more 
specific -Wfoo option is provided. I'm still not sure what would be the 
expected behavior in the presence of #pragmas.

Nonetheless, one still would need to fix the bug I mentioned in my previous 
email so that -Werror=foo is the same as -Wfoo -Werror=foo.

As Joseph mentioned, somebody has to come up with a set of consistent rules and 
then see how much of the rules GCC satisfies and whether it is worth it to 
break backwards compatibility or to modify the rules. One would need to inspect 
the code, since some options are set outside the code generated by the .awk 
scripts, and thus not follow the same rules (or extend the awk scripts to 
support those options).



More information about the Gcc mailing list