Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-24 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 24 April 2012 17:53, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/22/2012 03:38 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> >> Then, let's say we have one of such options. For example, let's call >> it -Wx for this example. If the behaviour is consistent with other >> "group" options like -Wall, then: >> >> -Wx is enabl

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-24 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/22/2012 03:38 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: Then, let's say we have one of such options. For example, let's call it -Wx for this example. If the behaviour is consistent with other "group" options like -Wall, then: -Wx is enabled by default (like now) -Wno-pedantic does not disable -Wx (li

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 22 April 2012 22:09, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>> On 04/22/2012 02:42 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: Which seems to suggest that we add an option name for each pe

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 22 April 2012 22:09, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 04/22/2012 02:42 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: >>> >>> Which seems to suggest that we add an option name for each pedwarn >>> enabled by default. Is this also what you suggest? >> >> >>

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > For example, -Wmain is enabled by default but also by -Wall and > -pedantic. However, -Werror=all does not enable -Werror=main. Is this > a bug or the desired behaviour? this particular one is a bug.

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/22/2012 02:42 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: >> >> Which seems to suggest that we add an option name for each pedwarn >> enabled by default. Is this also what you suggest? > > > I agree with this, and I think that's also what Gaby was s

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 22 April 2012 21:15, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 04/22/2012 02:42 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote: >> >> Which seems to suggest that we add an option name for each pedwarn >> enabled by default. Is this also what you suggest? > > > I agree with this, and I think that's also what Gaby was suggesting

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Jason Merrill
On 04/22/2012 02:42 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: Which seems to suggest that we add an option name for each pedwarn enabled by default. Is this also what you suggest? I agree with this, and I think that's also what Gaby was suggesting by "finer-grained". Jason

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 22 April 2012 19:25, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez > wrote: >> This patch makes Wpedantic the canonical form of -pedantic. This makes >> -Wno-pedantic, -Werror=pedantic, #pragma diagnostics and other parts >> of the diagnostic machinery that ex

Re: PR c/44774 -Werror=edantic

2012-04-22 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > This patch makes Wpedantic the canonical form of -pedantic. This makes > -Wno-pedantic, -Werror=pedantic, #pragma diagnostics and other parts > of the diagnostic machinery that expect warning options to start with > -W, work with -Wped