From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23694 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2018 19:56:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23483 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2018 19:56:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=website X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:56:12 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1fDEuA-0004x7-JX from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:56:10 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:56:07 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fDEu6-0001Bm-M5; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:56:06 +0000 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:37:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Will Hawkins CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Warn for ignored ASM labels on typdef declarations PR 85444 (v.2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2018-04/txt/msg01344.txt.bz2 On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Will Hawkins wrote: > I agree! It was, however, the closest of all the categories that I > could find that seemed to match the warning that I am trying to emit. > I will go back and review the categories and see if there is something > that I missed. If there isn't a suitable warning option for a new warning, that means you need to add (with documentation) a new warning option (which might then be enabled by -Wall or -Wextra if appropriate; and, once in GCC, should have release notes added to gcc-9/changes.html on the website). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com