On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I think this change is OK. It's obviously not a great situation, but "enabled by default" is fairly useless information, so this seems like a marginal improvement. Ian
