On 30 July 2011 15:56, Joern Rennecke wrote: > Quoting Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>: > >> I would object to changing the behaviour, or if it changes then it >> should be controllable so I can continue to get the current behaviour, >> e.g. -Wreorder=0 does what you propose, -Wreorder=1 does what we have >> now, and -Wreorder is equivalent to -Wreorder=1 > > That sounds somewhat obscure (e.g. why isn't -Wreorder=0 the same > as -Wno-reorder), and at some point people might demand negative values > for more discriminating checks and floating point values for in-between > choices. > > I think more descriptive would be: > -Wreorder=nonconst and -Wreorder=any > > If someone miraculously cheats Rice's theorem, or wants to propose to get > as close as possible to tell if reordering has a semantic effect as is > feasible to tell in a compiler, you could call it -Wreorder=relevant or > somesuch.
Sure, call it -Wreorder=bikeshed if you want to. I don't care what it's called but I want the current behaviour, so if -Wreorder changes I want it to be optional.
