public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Golubev I. N." <gin@mo.msk.ru>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: preprocessor/4902: no macro redef warnings
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:26:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <02493bf9548983-gin@mo.msk.ru> (raw)


>Number:         4902
>Category:       preprocessor
>Synopsis:       no macro redef warnings
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Mon Nov 19 10:56:00 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Golubev I. N.
>Release:        3.0.2
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: 


host: 
build: 
target: 
configured with:  
>Description:

Neil wrote in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-11/msg00263.html>:

> you get a warning iff -pedantic

`(cpp)Undefining and Redefining Macros' does not say so.  Neither does
it explain (or refer to explanation) why that change of requiring
`-pedantic' was made (making `gcc' different from many other compilers
which warn by default).

Perhaps some people think that redefn warnings `trigger frequently on
harmless code' (as `-pedantic' description in `(cpp)Invocation' says),
but I disagree.  My experience shows that more often than not they
detect real bugs.

>How-To-Repeat:

#define a 1
#define a 2

I expect: warnings like this:

2:warning: `a' redefined
1:warning: this is the location of the previous definition

I get: no warnings.

>Fix:
	
1. Add more granularity to cpp warning options.  Allow redefn warnings
to be enabled without requesting all `-pedantic' diagnostics.

2. Whether it done or not, document in `(cpp)Undefining and Redefining
Macros' option required to get redefn warnings (or to suppress them,
if they are re-enabled by default).
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


             reply	other threads:[~2001-11-19 18:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-11-13 15:26 Golubev I. N. [this message]
2001-11-15  7:46 Neil Booth
2001-11-15  8:16 Zack Weinberg
2001-11-16 23:46 Neil Booth
2001-11-19  9:46 Neil Booth
2001-11-19  9:48 neil
2001-11-19  9:56 neil

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=02493bf9548983-gin@mo.msk.ru \
    --to=gin@mo.msk.ru \
    --cc=gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).