On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Robert Dewar wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > > 2008/8/14 Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > But in any case the default should be the default with no configure > > > option, users liking it should find their makefiles work the same > > > everywhere and users not liking it can add the opposite option. > > > > Then we are not going to get correct locations ever. New users do not > > read the manual. Neither old users do. New functionality disabled by > > default will be lost for both. I am fairly sure that a significant > > percentage of GCC developers (not just users) do not know about > > -fdiagnostics-show-option. > > Users are not beta testers. Forcing inconvenience on users to benefit > developers is not justified for a relatively minor issue like this. > Changing the default here would have a huge impact, I think probably > some developers do not realize the impact that changing messages or > output has on people developing large systems for which they expect > stable compiler output, e.g. for test cases.
We certainly do change the *text* of messages to improve them (this includes putting in more information that can fit within the existing single-line format), and add new messages following the standard formats, but I believe we should leave consumers able to rely on certain aspects of the output that follow the GNU Coding Standards and not start inserting new, non-standard lines in the output that would dominate the standard ones. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
