On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> writes: >> On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether. >>> Tested as before. OK to install? >> >> Still a huge earthquake in terms of affecting test suites and >> baselines of many users. is it really worth it? In the case of >> GNAT we have only recently started tagging messages in this >> way, so changes would not be so disruptive, and we can debate >> following whatever gcc does, but I think it is important to >> understand that any change in this area is a big one in terms >> of impact on users. > > The patch deliberately didn't affect Ada's diagnostic routines given > your comments from the first round. Calling this a "huge earthquake" > for other languages seems like a gross overstatement. > > I don't think gcc, g++, gfortran, etc, have ever made a commitment > to producing textually identical warnings and errors for given inputs > across different releases. It seems ridiculous to require that, > especially if it stands in the way of improving the diagnostics > or introducing finer-grained -W control. > > E.g. Florian's complaint was that we shouldn't have warnings that > are not under the control of any -W options. But by your logic > we couldn't change that either, because all those "[enabled by default]"s > would become "[-Wnew-option]"s.
Yeah, I think Roberts argument is a red herring - there are loads of diagnostic changes every release so you cannot expect those to be stable. I'm fine with dropping the [enabled by default] as in the patch, but lets hear another "ok" before making the change. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > Richard
