Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree it is confusing. especially as in one place one has
to
> write warn_<foo> and in the other place one writes OPT_W<foo>. It'd be
> nice if one just wrote
> if (warn_foo && frobbed)
> warning ("foo is frobbed");
>
> I don't care if it's spelt warn_foo, OPT_Wfoo, warning_p(foo) or whatever,
> so long as it's spelt only one way. The 'warning (OPT_Wfoo, ...)' syntax
> helps only where there is no conditional before the warning -- how often
> does that occur? The way it currently is, one runs the risk of writing
> if (warn_c_cast
> && .....
> && .....
> && .....)
> warning (OPT_Wconst_cast, ...)
Actually, the point is that you *never* need to explicitally name the
"warn_<foo>" variable unless you are optimizing. In other words, code which
presently is:
if (warn_foo
&& frobbed)
warning (0, "foo is frobbed");
should be replaced with:
if (frobbed)
warning (OPT_Wfoo, "foo is frobbed");
You need to pass the option to warning() also for another reason: we want to
be able to optionally print which flag can be used to disable each warning,
so warning() has to be smarter than it used to be.
--
Giovanni Bajo
