On 19/01/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
    No. This is an undocumented, unnamed, unconditional warning.

    We are working on fixing those for GCC 4.3 :-)

Could you explain what that means?  What exactly is the problem that
you are talking about fixing?  What change is planned?


Well, I don't want to create false expectations. I am doing this in my
free time and I am new to GCC development. So I am in no way
representing anyone else's views or intentions.

Nevertheless,  I (and others seem to agree) would like to name that
particular warning, so it can be enabled/disabled. Also, there is a
similar warning for unsigned >= 0 and unsigned < 0 in -Wextra. There
are bug reports about the inconsistency (http://gcc.gnu.org/PR23587).
So, it would be nice to unify them, give them a name and properly
document the new option.

That is just part of a proposal to update the documentation of Wextra,
and name (or group under existing options) the few unnamed warnings
enabled by Wextra. The idea is that Wextra would be a super-option,
like Wall, that is, it just enables other warnings but it doesn't
produce warning messages by itself. The discussion is still going on
because we don't want to have many new options, we don't want to group
under the same option unrelated warnings, we want sensible names, we
want to keep current behaviour, etc. Gabriel Dos Reis in particular is
investing a lot of time reviewing patches to achieve this.

In addition, there have been already several bugs fixed about
duplicated warning messages, missing overflow warnings for binary
operators in C++, and a few more I don't remember right now. Also, Ian
Lance Taylor has fixed some warning options to work in C++ as they do
for C.

Finally, there is a proposal by Chris Pickett to update the
documentation about warning options to make easier to lookup a
particular warning option, understand the relations between the
different options and which options are enabled by default (and fix
any documentation bugs that may be found while doing this).

Cheers,

Manuel.

Reply via email to