* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-01 21:42 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-01 21:54 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-01 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 21:42 -------
I will propose to introduce -Wpedantic as the canonical name of pedantic. This
will also make -Werror=pedantic work. I don't see any reason why -pedantic has
to be special except historical. We can keep the old forms as aliases
indefinitely.
Joseph, Gabriel, what is your opinion? Should I prepare a patch to add
-Wpedantic?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-07-01 21:42:35
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-01 21:42 ` [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-01 21:54 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 1:23 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-01 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-01 21:53 -------
manuel@gcc11:~$ ~/test2/161617M/build/gcc/cc1 empty2.c -pedantic-errors
empty2.c:1:1: error: struct has no members [-pedantic]
empty2.c:2:1: error: unnamed struct/union that defines no instances
manuel@gcc11:~$ ~/test2/161617M/build/gcc/cc1 empty2.c -pedantic -Werror
empty2.c:1:1: error: struct has no members [-Werror=edantic]
empty2.c:2:1: error: unnamed struct/union that defines no instances [-Werror]
We also should add a -Wpedantic-default (or -Wpedantic-required) for pedwarns
enabled by default (not by -pedantic).
OK?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-01 21:42 ` [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-01 21:54 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 1:23 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2010-07-02 6:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2010-07-02 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-02 01:22 -------
Subject: Re: -Werror=edantic
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> We also should add a -Wpedantic-default (or -Wpedantic-required) for pedwarns
> enabled by default (not by -pedantic).
Those would be extremely bad option names, since diagnostics enabled by
default have nothing to do with pedantry; "pedwarn" is simply a
GCC-internal function name for diagnosing constraint violations and should
not be allowed to influence command-line option names. -pedantic-errors
means something like -Werror=standard-required-diagnostics and a pedwarn
enabled by default is a standard-required diagnostic enabled by default
(as opposed to a warning enabled by default which is a
non-standard-required diagnostic enabled by default). There is no
particular reason to allow people to disable standard-required default
diagnostics as a group separately from non-standard-required ones; think
about more useful classifications of the existing enabled-by-default
diagnostics to work out suitable option names for disabling them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 1:23 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2010-07-02 6:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 8:08 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-02 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 06:58 -------
I knew this couldn't be easy ;-)
Let's restrict to -pedantic first. It is the only warning flag that doesn't
start with "-W". This breaks some code that expects that every warning flag
starts with -W. I want to introduce -Wpedantic as an alias. You do not like the
name. What is your suggestion?
Manuel.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 6:59 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 8:08 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 9:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-02 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 08:07 -------
Related PR 37187
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |37187
nThis| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 8:08 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 9:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 10:56 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-02 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 09:22 -------
Then the right fix would be not to assume that all such options start with -W,
no?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 9:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 10:56 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 12:18 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-02 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 10:56 -------
Why? All of them do, except -pedantic. I don't see any reason for -pedantic
being exceptional. Or can I start proposing warnings options that do not start
with -W?
Should we introduce a special case for pedantic (code and documentation) for
-Werror= and for -Wno-error= and for -Wno-? I can start opening PRs for the
missing special cases.
We would also need to introduce (and handle specially) -no-pedantic and
-no-pedantic-errors.
All the above is free if we just make -Wpedantic an alias for -pedantic.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 10:56 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 12:18 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-07-02 14:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-07-02 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-02 12:18 -------
By the way, the subject should read -Werror=pedantic, right?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 12:18 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-07-02 14:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 15:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-02 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 14:24 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> By the way, the subject should read -Werror=pedantic, right?
>
Well, it depends. We actually print -Werror=edantic. ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 14:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-02 15:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-07-04 1:46 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2010-07-04 8:27 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-07-02 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-02 15:22 -------
I see, I had only a quick look to the audit trail and thought it was a less
trivial issue ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-02 15:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-07-04 1:46 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2010-07-04 8:27 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2010-07-04 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-04 01:46 -------
Subject: Re: -Werror=edantic
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Let's restrict to -pedantic first. It is the only warning flag that doesn't
> start with "-W". This breaks some code that expects that every warning flag
> starts with -W. I want to introduce -Wpedantic as an alias. You do not like the
> name. What is your suggestion?
I do not object to -Wpedantic. I object to -Wpedantic-default or other
variants involving "pedantic" for diagnostics currently enabled by
default.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/44774] -Werror=edantic
2010-07-01 21:40 [Bug c/44774] New: -Werror=edantic manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-04 1:46 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2010-07-04 8:27 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
11 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-04 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-04 08:27 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
>
> I do not object to -Wpedantic.
Ah, ok! Then, I will start with this and worry about the other warnings when
their time comes. Thanks!
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2010-07-01 21:42:35 |2010-07-04 08:27:00
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread