On 7/24/17, Franz Sirl <franz.sirl-ker...@lauterbach.com> wrote: > Am 2017-07-24 um 00:19 schrieb Volker Reichelt: >> On 23 Jul, Eric Gallager wrote: >>> On 7/23/17, Volker Reichelt <v.reich...@netcologne.de> wrote: >>>> Hi again, >>>> >>>> here is an updated patch for a new warning about redundant >>>> access-specifiers. It takes Dave's various comments into account. >>>> >>>> The main changes w.r.t. to the previous versions are: >>>> >>>> * The warning is now a two-level warning with a slightly shorter name: >>>> -Waccess-specifiers=1, -Waccess-specifiers=2 >>>> with -Waccess-specifiers defaulting to -Waccess-specifiers=1. >>> >>> Just a more generalized comment as a user, but I don't really like >>> this trend that new warning options are so often given numeric levels >>> these days. A warning option with different levels requires special >>> handling in configure scripts or Makefiles, which is harder than just >>> toggling different names (i.e. how things work without numeric >>> levels). >> >> Fair point. > > Another point is the handling of -Werror=. AFAIK it would be impossible > right now to have "-Werror=access-specifiers=1 -Waccess-specifiers=2", > with a combined meaning of "error for level 1 + warning for level 2". > > Actually, are the intended semantics for the existing cases (eg. > -Warray-bounds=) vs. -Werror= even documented somewhere? > > Franz >
Not exactly documentation, but there are bugs open about it: 56048: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56048 68845: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845 (which I see is yours, Franz) Might be worth having someone take a look at them.
