From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11769 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2002 21:26:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11745 invoked by uid 71); 1 Jul 2002 21:26:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020701212603.11744.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Neil Booth Subject: Re: preprocessor/7029: preprocessor should ignore #warning with -M Reply-To: Neil Booth X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR preprocessor/7029; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Neil Booth To: Zack Weinberg Cc: wolfgang.bangerth@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: preprocessor/7029: preprocessor should ignore #warning with -M Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:20:29 +0100 Zack Weinberg wrote:- > > Warnings are sent to stderr and the dpendency information isn't; so if > > you don't want the warnings you are free to pipe stderr to /dev/null. > > If you still wanted to retain errors but not warnings you can use -w, > > or check the compiler return code. > > > > So I disagree that there is any reason to change the existing behaviour, > > and want to close this PR. Do you agree, Zack? > > Well, I think it might be reasonable for -M switches that inhibit > compilation to imply -w. Presumably the user will get all the > warnings in due course as part of the real compilation. Fair enough; I'll create a patch. Neil.