Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> writes: > On 2/9/2014 3:09 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >>> IMO the natural assumption is that gnu++11 is enabled by default, which is >>> how Lars also read it. >>> >>> There seemed to be support for using "warning enabled by default" instead, >>> so this patch does that. Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install? >>> >>> I'll post an Ada patch separately. >> >> FWIW this doesn't seem desirable to me, this will make the diagnostic longer. >> For Ada this wouldn't really disambiguate things, and some users may be >> dependent on the current format, so changing it isn't very friendly. >> >> Arno > > can't we just reword the one warning where there is an ambiguity to > avoid the confusion, rather than creating such an earthquake, which > as Arno says, really has zero advantages to Ada programmers, and clear > disadvantages .. to me [enabled by default] is already awfully long!
Well, since the Ada part has been rejected I think we just need to consider this from the non-Ada perspective. And IMO there's zero chance that each new warning will be audited for whether the "[enabled by default]" will be unambiguous. The fact that this particular warning caused confusion and someone actually reported it doesn't mean that there are no other warnings like that. E.g.: -fprefetch-loop-arrays is not supported with -Os [enabled by default] could also be misunderstood, especially if working on an existing codebase with an existing makefile. And the effect for: pragma simd ignored because -fcilkplus is not enabled [enabled by default] is a bit unfortunate. Those were just two examples -- I'm sure I could pick more. Thanks, Richard
