From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19063 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2008 15:36:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 19053 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jan 2008 15:36:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:35:53 +0000 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JE4sI-0002TM-Np for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JE4sF-0003DH-AT for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:35:50 -0500 Received: from smtp.cs.tamu.edu ([128.194.138.100] helo=postal.cs.tamu.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JE4sE-0003CU-Ss for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 10:35:47 -0500 Received: from soliton.cs.tamu.edu (vpn-17.cs.tamu.edu [128.194.150.17]) by postal.cs.tamu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A1946DE06; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:35:43 -0600 (CST) Received: by soliton.cs.tamu.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6D72D1AB2A; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0600 (CST) To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: "Doug Gregor" , jklowden@freetds.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: -Wparentheses lumps too much together References: <20071219200235.GA21525@oak.schemamania.org> <24b520d20801111427r6081fec6k6a4a513e5022c492@mail.gmail.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87odbp3eyx.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 Ian Lance Taylor writes: | "Doug Gregor" writes: | | > To make this discussion a bit more concrete, the attached patch | > removes this particular warning from -Wparentheses and puts it into a | > new warning, -Wprecedence, that is not enabled by -Wall. This is | > slightly more fine-grained than what -Wparentheses does now. Opinions? | | Personally, I think it should stay in -Wall. But I'm willing to hear | other opinions. I agree that the warning should stay in -Wall. However, we may consider giving that group a more suggestive name, such as -Wprecedence/-Wno-precedence (enabled by default). -- Gaby