On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> This certainly brings some nice benefits.  There is, however, one use
>> case that I am worried about us losing by this change:  When I started
>> to use GCC, and a few times thereafter, I went through the list of all
>> options below the -Wall description to see whether to explicitly add
>> some. Recently, in GCC terms ;-), a kind volunteer added a reference to
>> -Wall to relevant options.  Are you confident this list is correct?  In
>> that case, consider my comment moot, and this part of the patch is fine.
> Sorry, I cannot understand what you mean. Could you elaborate a bit
> further? I went to gcc/c-opts.c and checked that the list of options
> is correct.

This is about documentation: Previously, one could go to the manual,
read the description of -Wall and all options _not_ covered by -Wall
would be below that point.  This won't be as easy with your patch,
will it?  That said, if you are confident that all options implied
by -Wall are marked thusly, I have no objections to this aspect of
your patch which means the overall patch is fine.

> Actually, I have this little patch that is neutral (do not change
> behaviour), bootstrapped and regression tested. I didn't submit it
> because we are in stage3, but perhaps an exception can be made here.
> 
> 2007-09-30  Manuel Lopez-Ibanez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
> 
>  * c-opts.c(c_common_handle_option): -Wnontemplate-friend,
> -Wwrite-strings and -Wmultichar are enabled by default, so Wall
> enabling them is redundant. Don't check two times for c_dialect_cxx.

This looks more like a bug fix, really.  Mark?

Gerald