[RFC] -Weverything

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Jan 27 2019, Steve Kargl wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König <tk@tkoenig.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
>> > > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3...  -Wlevel=0 default warnings.
>> > > -Wlevel=1 is equivalent to -Wall.  -Wlevel=2 is -Wall -Wextra
>> > > (and maybe -Wsurprising).
>> >
>> > ... and -Wlevel=3 could then be -Wkitchen-sink, at least from the
>> > Fortran-only side. :-)
>> >
>> > I quite like that idea.  I don't think -Wall will be deprecated soon,
>> > but -Wlevel sounds like a good thing to implement.
>> 
>> Maybe instead of -Wlevel= whyng names for levels seems helpful, but
numbers are more future-proof. not just -W0, -W1, -W2, -W3; -W would be
>> -W1 (because -W already exists)?  Just like -O :).
>
>That would work.  With -Wlevel, I'm thinking that -Wlevel=-1 would be
>the kitchen-sink.  This means one can add new l>
>evels for positive
>levels if desired: -Wlevel=n+1 = -Wlevel=n -Wnew-opt1 -Wnew-opt2,
>etc.  

Both good, even excellent, ideas.  I would prefer 'max' rather than '-1',
but it is essential that its specification (and comment around the code)
say that it is the supremum, to ng names for levels seems helpful, but
numbers are more future-proof.avoid a repetition of the Wall mistake.
It's rather like optimisation - using names for levels seems helpful, but
numbers are more future-proof.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.