From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-45867-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31263 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2002 00:12:14 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31122 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2002 00:12:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ariane.ens-cachan.fr) (138.231.176.4)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2002 00:12:10 -0000
Received: from mayo.cmla.ens-cachan.fr (mayo.cmla.ens-cachan.fr [138.231.64.2])
          by ariane.ens-cachan.fr (8.12.0.Beta19/jtpda-5.3.3) with ESMTP id g160C6qh027709
          ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:12:07 +0100
Received: from jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr (jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr [138.231.64.60])
          by mayo.cmla.ens-cachan.fr (8.9.1a/jtpda-5.3.2) with ESMTP id BAA07656
          ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:12:05 +0100 (MET)
Received: from (dosreis@localhost)
          by jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr (8.9.3/jtpda-5.3.1/CL) id BAA29180
          ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 01:12:04 +0100 (MET)
To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: Dautrevaux@microprocess.com, gdr@codesourcery.com, aoliva@redhat.com,
   coola@ngs.ru, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, pcarlini@unitus.it
Subject: Re: a warning to implement
References: <20020205234726.C3A82F28BE@nile.gnat.com>
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: dewar@gnat.com's message of "Tue,  5 Feb 2002 18:47:26 -0500 (EST)"
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:58:00 -0000
Message-ID: <flg04fcvu3.fsf@jambon.cmla.ens-cachan.fr>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 19.34
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

| <<Please, note that I'm not saying that GCC should not have an option to
| trigger the proposed warning. I'm saying that that shouldn't be on by
| default in -Wall.
| >>
| 
| I disagree, this warning should be part of -Wall, since it is a clear error
| with no defined meaning.

Constructs that are "clear errors no defined meaning" are flagged
as such: errors, not warning.  Thus, the above is flawed.

-- Gaby