[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule |
Date: |
Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:05:56 +0100 |
Le 5 févr. 2013 à 04:03, Joel E. Denny <address@hidden> a écrit :
> 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?
I have no strong opinion about this. I'd go for the simplest
implementation, which is to enable the warning when we meet
%empty, regardless of whether -Wno-empty-rule was specified.
But I'm open to other opinions (which would requite three
states for the warning flags, instead of just two, not too big
a deal).
>>> 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?
I am not yet convinced that we really want something
more than -Wall, I was thinking aloud, throwing ideas
to see if someone picks them :)
Do you think we should go in that direction?
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Joel E. Denny, 2013/02/03
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/03
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Joel E. Denny, 2013/02/03
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/04
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Joel E. Denny, 2013/02/04
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Joel E. Denny, 2013/02/05
- [PATCH 00/12] {master} explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- Re: [PATCH 00/12] {master} explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/16
- Re: [PATCH 00/12] {master} explicit empty right-hand side of a rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/19
- [PATCH 02/12] parser: use %empty, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- [PATCH 01/12] grammar: introduce %empty, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- Re: [PATCH 01/12] grammar: introduce %empty, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- [PATCH 10/12] style: no longer use backquotes in messages, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- [PATCH 08/12] doc: introduce %empty and -Wempty-rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/18
- Re: [PATCH 08/12] doc: introduce %empty and -Wempty-rule, Akim Demaille, 2013/02/16