On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 3/18/19 8:46 PM, Alex Henrie wrote: > > From: Manuel López-Ibáñez <m...@gcc.gnu.org> > > > > * opts.c: Ignore -Wno-error=<some-future-warning> except if there are > > other diagnostics. > That's not a complete ChangeLog entry. Each file/function changed > should be mentioned. Something like this: > > * opts-common.c (ignored_wnoerror_options): New global variable. > * opts-global.c (print_ignored_options): Ignore > -Wno-error=<some-future-warning> except if there are other > diagnostics. > * opts.c (enable_warning_as_error): Record ignored -Wno-error > options. > opts.h (ignored_wnoerror_options): Declare.
Thanks! > If HINT is set, do we still want to potentially push the argument onto > the ignored_wnoerror_options list? My inclination is yes since the hint > is just that, a fuzzily matched hint. That hint may be appropriate > (user typo'd or somesuch) or it may be totally offbase (user was trying > to turn off some future warning. I don't think we need to support hints in the case of -Wno-error=<some-unknown-warning> because we don't support hints for -Wno-<some-unknown-warning> and as you pointed out, hints are less likely to be helpful here because the warning may be perfectly valid in a newer version of GCC. I'll send rebased patches later tonight. Thanks for the feedback! -Alex
