[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)
From: |
Mark Mitchell |
Subject: |
Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3) |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:25:03 -0800 |
>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Haney <address@hidden> writes:
Scott> I would complain about these warnings to any compiler
Scott> vendor. I think we thought this could be fixed by
Scott> CodeSourcery since you guys work on the compiler and we
"could be fixed" => "is broken"
I think that's the key issue; is it broken?
I see that this warning is issued unconditionally, by
semantics.c:finish_mem_initializers. Jeffrey, we could make that
warning conditional on something. I don't think flag_pedantic is
appropriate, but we could conditionalize it on extra_warnings.
(That's what -W turns on.)
I see that the copy constructor warning *is* under extra_warnings, so
you are probably compiling with -W. -W is probably overkill; it will
complain about things that are in the same stylistic category. For
example, -W will complain about unused parameters, and about code
like:
struct s { int f, g; };
struct t { struct s h; int i; };
struct t x = { 1, 2, 3 };
even though this has well-defined semantics.
Ideally, the various categories of warnings (ordinary warnings, -W
warnings, -Wall warnings, etc.) would have some associated clear
criteria about what belonged where. Right now, they don't.
I think that the way to go is that some interested party (I'm not,
particulary :-)) should bring this up by sending mail to
address@hidden' and seeing what the response is.
--
Mark Mitchell address@hidden
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com