From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28970 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2008 23:47:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 28954 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2008 23:47:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:46:40 +0000 Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889653911B; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:46:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix, from userid 1203) id 837EC1004E; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:46:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B53D10046; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:46:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:49:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Ralf Wildenhues cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix -W* documentation, update to contrib/check_warning_flags.sh In-Reply-To: <20080309174311.GT6280@ins.uni-bonn.de> Message-ID: References: <20080220211235.GD3640@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080308132507.GK22739@ins.uni-bonn.de> <20080309174311.GT6280@ins.uni-bonn.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LSU 955 2008-03-06) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00993.txt.bz2 On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> +@item -Wno-format-contains-nul >> +@opindex Wno-format-contains-nul >> +@opindex Wformat-contains-nul >> +If @option{-Wformat} is specified, do not warn about format strings that >> +contain NUL bytes. >> I guess if someone really wanted to, she could use -Wformat-contains-nul >> alone (without -Wformat) as well, right? > > Yes, but this formulation is just in line with how > -Wno-format-extra-args and -Wno-format-zero-length are described, too. > Terse, but not illogical, no? Not illogical, just not completely and I've seen your attention to detail (which is good), which is why I pointed it out. :-) Gerald