From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28970 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2003 11:53:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28963 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2003 11:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 11:53:02 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0OBplAk003235; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:51:47 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h0OBpjPs003234; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:51:45 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Mark Mitchell , Stan Shebs , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: RFC: Named warnings References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01120.txt.bz2 "Joseph S. Myers" writes: | On 24 Jan 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > I disagree. *Some* warnings are language-independent -- thery are | > usually triggered by middle- or back-end. Others are highly | > language-dependent. Trying to make a number means different warnings | > depending on the selected language is very confusing. | | But, whatever scheme is used, some effort should be made to use the same | code for warnings in the C and C++ front ends that are in some sense the | same warning (possibly differently worded). Surely, just like the current -Wxxx scheme works. However having 12367 means "don't derive from this class" in C++ whereas it means "don't accept COMMON" in FORTRAN is really confusing. -- Gaby