On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > Though accepting -Wno-no- seems to a general bug in the driver > for all options that don't specify RejectNegative. It accepts > -Wno-no-all as well. In fact, it seems to accept anything that > starts with -Wno-, even if it's completely bogus.
No, it's deliberate, so that software can freely use new -Wno- options to disable warnings added in new GCC versions without needing autoconf or similar tests for whether those options are supported. *If* there are any warnings emitted, that might have been disabled by the -Wno- option, GCC warns, but if there are no warnings emitted anyway, the required semantics of the -Wno- option have trivially been met. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
