OK.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Mark Wielaard <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:57:09AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> I think the only thing "blocking" the patch from going in is that >> nobody made a decission on how the actual warning option should be >> named. I think the suggestion for -Wshadow=[global|local|compatible-local] >> is the right one. With -Wshadow being an alias for -Wshadow=global. >> But since there are already gcc versions out there that accept >> -Wshadow-local and -Wshadow-compatible-local (and you can find some >> configure scripts that already check for those options) it would be >> good to have those as (hidden) aliases. >> >> If people, some maintainer, agrees with that then we can do the .opt >> file hacking to make it so. > > Nobody objected, nor did anybody say this is a great idea. But I think > it is. So I just implemented the options this way. > > I made one small diagnostic change to fix a regression pointed out by > gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr48062.c. It should still be possible to ignore > all shadow warnings with #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wshadow" when > -Wshadow was given, but not the new -Wshadow=(local|compatible-local). > So we now set warning_code = OPT_Wshadow when -Wshadow was given. > > The documentation and code comments were updated to refer to the > new -Wshadow=... variants. > > OK to commit the attached patch? > > Thanks, > > Mark
