On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 3:13 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 8/23/19 6:17 AM, Alex Henrie wrote:
> > +vec<const char *> ignored_wnoerror_options;
>
> Here you'll need to add a comment.
The declaration of ignored_options in opts-global.c doesn't have a
comment either. What would you like the comment to say?
> > + const char * opt = ignored_wnoerror_options.pop ();
>
> No space between '*' and 'opt' please.
Okay.
> You don't want to append and option that is already in the
> ignored_wnoerror_options:
>
> $
> ./xgcc -B. -Wunused-variable -Werror -Wno-error=some-future-warning
> -Wno-error=some-future-warning /tmp/main2.c
> /tmp/main2.c: In function ‘main’:
> /tmp/main2.c:3:7: error: unused variable ‘foo’ [-Werror=unused-variable]
> 3 | int foo; /* { dg-error "unused variable 'foo'" } */
> | ^~~
> /tmp/main2.c: At top level:
> cc1: error: ‘-Wno-error=some-future-warning’: no option
> ‘-Wsome-future-warning’ [-Werror]
> cc1: error: ‘-Wno-error=some-future-warning’: no option
> ‘-Wsome-future-warning’ [-Werror]
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> As seen the error is there twice.
Joseph explicitly asked me to make -Wno-error=some-future-warning
behave the same as -Wno-some-future-warning (see
<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg00065.html>), and
-Wno-some-future-warning prints multiple warnings if the option is
given multiple times.
> One question about the behavior:
>
> Why do I need to have another warning to get the warning:
> ‘-Wno-error=some-future-warning’ printed?
If we always give a warning about -Wno-error=some-future-warning then
combining that option with -Werror would cause compilation to fail,
which we don't want.
-Alex
