------- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 00:32 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > I can provide pointers on how this could be implemented. > Thank you, I'll certainly need some help on the following points: > - which branch I should start working on (4.4, 4.5, ...) so that > it has good chances to be accepted, and could be integrated into > released subversions without too many hassle
You should work on current trunk. This is a new feature, so not suitable for release branches. > - which front-ends I should target beside C/C++ > - which files to look at first considering the problem. I think you'll need to start modifying the awk scripts that read the *.opt files: gcc/opt*.awk You'll probably need to add a new flag Enables, like: Wextra Common Var(extra_warnings) Warning Enables(Wsomething-else,Wother-one) Print extra (possibly unwanted) warnings and make the awk scripts handle it by generating code that can print the relations. Other interesting files may be opts.* c-opts.*. > - if there are things in the developper docs (or rather > which are not in the developper docs) which could help me. It depends what you need to know. I cannot read your mind :-) > For the dev itself, I should be able to handle it. > Honestly I have not yet had a look at the code neither > at the architecture, but I guess I will find a common > module shared by the front-ends, compiler, etc. > I'll see if I can first spot / force compile-time warnings > for the calls to a function like log_warning(...) > if the warning is not linked to a diagnostic, > extend the api, ... I don't understand what you mean by this. > Thank you again, but if I start on that, I expect to go to the end, > so patching the manual would be a loss of time since all would be generated > after. I don't have so much time to spend on it, I just expect to do it in > a clean and efficient way. As you wish. I tend to think that when approaching something unknown and complex, it is better to start small, but if you think you are capable, just go ahead. I cannot promise that the result will be accepted (because I don't fully understand what you want to implement), but the experience may be helpful anyway for someone else to implement something similar. Flags like this should be named -fsomething. I don't think that -fshow-warnings will be accepted because it is ambigous. I still believe that letting -Wall --help=warnings return the flags enabled by Wall would be more clear (and easier to implement). There could be also -O3 --help, it will display the flags enabled by -O3. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44210
