http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-29
09:58:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I would recommend against naming each warning -Weffc++[n], but rather, give a
> more descriptive name. My suggestion is to create a few warnings, so that
> -Weffc++ would map to the following set of warnings (with their current
> description for reference and my suggested name):
>
David, if you wish to implement such a patch (or, even better, series of
patches, one for each new option), the only changes needed are:
* In the particular warning () calls, replace OPT_Weffc__ with the appropriate
OPT_W option.
* In c-family/c.opt, add a new entry for the new Wfoo option and use
EnabledBy(Weffc++)
* In doc/invoke.texi, document the new options.
* Bootstrap+regression test and submit to gcc-patches.
Profit!
