Hi Ludovic,
"Ludovic Courtès" <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> commit 9ee0455738f90086894d602075915d49a5044fb7
> Author: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat Nov 24 00:16:14 2012 +0100
>
> Turn on the `case' warnings in auto-compilation.
>
> * module/ice-9/boot-9.scm (%auto-compilation-options): Add
> `duplicate-case-datum' and `bad-case-datum'.
>
> commit 5cd10307866e6e6c44cb46b366f71d4118fa6aed
> Author: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org>
> Date: Fri Nov 23 23:56:01 2012 +0100
>
> Add tests for `-Wduplicate-case-datum' and `-Wbad-case-datum'.
>
> * test-suite/tests/tree-il.test (%opts-w-duplicate-case-datum,
> %opts-w-bad-case-datum): New variables.
> ("warnings")["duplicate-case-datum", "bad-case-datum"]: New tests.
>
> commit 679a35567dbb0a467e99f19d3f513fac28317f26
> Author: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org>
> Date: Fri Nov 23 23:41:32 2012 +0100
>
> doc: Mention the `duplicate-case-datum' and `bad-case-datum' warnings.
>
> * doc/ref/api-evaluation.texi (Compilation): List the
> `duplicate-case-datum' and `bad-case-datum' warnings.
Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but I should mention that although
I use some of the warnings infrastructure for reporting the
'duplicate-case-datum' and 'bad-case-datum' warnings, I never check for
those warning flags. The warnings are reported unconditionally.
I had started to work on a patch set to make them conditional, but that
work was halted due to an unresolved disagreement about how warnings
should be specified.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-02/msg00080.html
I felt, and continue to strongly feel, that we should not require the
user to provide a complete list of warning types that they want. If we
do that, then users will be forced to hard-code that list into their
build systems (and/or code that uses 'compile'). If they do this, then
whenever we add a new warning type, no one will see the new warnings
until they modify their build system.
Can we revisit this issue?
Regards,
Mark
