On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 3:12 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:13:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Andrew Pinski: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:13 AM Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> This is another recent GCC extension whose use is apparently > > >> difficult to spot in code reviews. > > >> > > >> The name of the option is due to Jonathan Wakely. Part of it > > >> could apply to C++ as well (for labels at the end of a compound > > >> statement). > > > > > > I like this idea of having an option here, though I am not a fan of > > > the name of the option. When I saw `free`, I was not thinking of free > > > flowing or free radicals but rather free as price (beer). > > > I can't think of a good alternative though. > > > > If we don't see C++ support coming, we could use -Wc23-labels. > > Otherwise -Wflexible-labels, -Wunrestricted-labels, -Wenhanced-labels … > > Or separate options: -Wend-labels, -Wdeclaration-labels. But I don't > > think anyone would want to treat those two cases differently. >
I prefer the "separate options: -Wend-labels, -Wdeclaration-labels" choice. > So, wouldn't it be better when splitting -Wc11-c23-compat option into pieces > represent those as operands -Wc11-c23-compat=unnamed-parameters,labels,... > where -Wc11-c23-compat would stand for all the subparts? > I really don't like this trend of further use of the equals sign in warning names; please just use simple separate option names instead of a single option name with multiple operands. -Wc11-c23-compat can still be an umbrella flag even with the regular option naming scheme, just like -Wall and -Wextra already are. > Jakub >
