On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar<de...@adacore.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
>>>>> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
>>>>> wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
>>>> -Wdefault
>>>>
>>>> might be better
>>> except if people want warnings about "defaults" in C++11 (which can mean
>>> lot of things).
>> How about a warning level?
>>
>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
>> -W1: default
>> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
>> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
>>
> This is exactly what Microsoft C++ compiler does and what their Visual
> Studio IDE exposes in the UI. So, there is a reasonable precedent.
Exactly. Would anyone really think it would be a good idea to just not have
the -O<number> levels and expect every end user to mix-and-match from a huge
set of somewhat unknown-and-unpredictable-just-from-the-names long and
confusingly named individual optimisation suboptions? I think -W levels is a
new feature that we can easily retrofit on top of the existing structure
without having to break or change anything that already works, and that would
be equally as user-friendly and pragmatic as having -O levels has already
shown itself to be.
cheers,
DaveK
