Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule

[Joel E. Denny]

Hi Akim,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Akim Demaille wrote:

> I feel that using %empty should be all or nothing, so any occurrence
> or %empty should enable -Wempty-rule, right?

Makes sense.  Would -Wno-empty-rule still disable it?

> > Also, in gcc and clang, -Wall does not include the default warnings.  
> > It's a separate category.  Quite a misnomer.  Maybe we should just not 
> > have a -Wall.
> 
> We already have one.  I have tried to model Bison's diagnostic interface
> to the one of gcc/clang.  In this regard, it would be weird not to support
> -Wall, which is fairly traditional.

I misunderstood your proposal when you mentioned -Weverything.  I realize 
now you meant that -Wempty-rule would be included in -Weverything but not 
in -Wall because the latter might be in widespread use.  Right?

If we really want -Wall to work like gcc's, then should -Wno-all also 
behave like gcc's?  That is, perhaps it shouldn't disable default 
warnings?