Eric Blake <e...@byu.net> writes: > I'm considering using manywarnings in m4, and noticed that newer gcc > supports even more warnings. I noticed several warnings supported by gcc > 4.3.4 --help=warnings that were not listed already; see the patch below. > However, looking at it closer, it is obvious that some of the newly-added > warnings added in this patch are C++ or ObjC-specific; maybe we should > break this macro into the set of warnings useful for each language, rather > than an overall list. For that matter, some warnings (like -Wtraditional) > don't make any sense in the context of gnulib, since we require C89 or > better, so including them in gl_MANYWARN_ALL_GCC just means that package > maintainers have to exclude it.
Yes, I've intentionally kept all non-C warnings out of manywarnings because (in general, i.e. for some warnings) it may even lead to problems when passed to gcc when compiling C. So I don't think your patch is likely to work well in normal situations. I think it makes sense to keep separate lists, would you want to work on it? I'd prefer to keep a list covering all gcc warnings, so that I have to explicitly anything from it. I'd be fine with an approach that would add -Wtraditional to another list, e.g. gl_MANYWARN_RECOMMENDED_DISABLED and make it easy to disable all warnings from such a list. /Simon
