On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>> Robert Dewar writes:
>>> On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether.
Tested as before. OK to install
Am 2014-02-11 15:36, schrieb Richard Sandiford:
I thought the trend these days was to move towards -Werror, so that for
many people the expected output is to get no warnings at all. And bear
in mind that the kind of warnings that are not under -W control tend to
be those that are so likely to be
On 2/11/2014 9:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I find it hard to believe that
significant numbers of users are not fixing the sources of those
warnings and are instead requiring every release of GCC to produce
warnings with a particular wording.
Good enough for me, I think it is OK to make th
Robert Dewar writes:
>> I don't think gcc, g++, gfortran, etc, have ever made a commitment
>> to producing textually identical warnings and errors for given inputs
>> across different releases. It seems ridiculous to require that,
>> especially if it stands in the way of improving the diagnostics
On 2/11/2014 7:48 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
The patch deliberately didn't affect Ada's diagnostic routines given
your comments from the first round. Calling this a "huge earthquake"
for other languages seems like a gross overstatement.
Actually it's much less of an impact for Ada for two r
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Robert Dewar writes:
>> On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether.
>>> Tested as before. OK to install?
>>
>> Still a huge earthquake in terms of affecting test suite
Robert Dewar writes:
> On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether.
>> Tested as before. OK to install?
>
> Still a huge earthquake in terms of affecting test suites and
> baselines of many users. is it really worth it? In the cas
On 2/11/2014 4:45 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
OK, this version drops the "[enabled by default]" altogether.
Tested as before. OK to install?
Still a huge earthquake in terms of affecting test suites and
baselines of many users. is it really worth it? In the case of
GNAT we have only recently
On 02/09/2014 09:00 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
+ return xstrdup (_("warning enabled by default"));
I think this is still wrong because this message really means, "this
warning cannot be controlled with a warning flag, but it can likely be
switched off by other means". I don't think
Richard Biener writes:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 2/9/2014 3:23 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
can't we just reword the one warning where there is an ambiguity to
avoid the confusion, rather than creating such an earthquake, which
as Arno says, really
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 2/9/2014 3:23 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
>>> can't we just reword the one warning where there is an ambiguity to
>>> avoid the confusion, rather than creating such an earthquake, which
>>> as Arno says, really has zero advantages to Ada
On 2/9/2014 3:23 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
can't we just reword the one warning where there is an ambiguity to
avoid the confusion, rather than creating such an earthquake, which
as Arno says, really has zero advantages to Ada programmers, and clear
disadvantages .. to me [enabled by default]
Robert Dewar writes:
> On 2/9/2014 3:09 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>> IMO the natural assumption is that gnu++11 is enabled by default, which is
>>> how Lars also read it.
>>>
>>> There seemed to be support for using "warning enabled by default" instead,
>>> so this patch does that. Tested on x86
On 2/9/2014 3:10 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Which testsuite do you mean? I did test this with Ada enabled
and there were no regressions.
If you mean an external testsuite then I certainly don't mind
holding off the Ada part. I hope the non-Ada part could still
go in without it though.
I m
Robert Dewar writes:
> On 2/9/2014 3:03 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> This switches Ada from using [enabled by default] to [warning enabled
>> by default] for consistency with:
>>
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00549.html
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if the above pat
On 2/9/2014 3:09 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
IMO the natural assumption is that gnu++11 is enabled by default, which is
how Lars also read it.
There seemed to be support for using "warning enabled by default" instead,
so this patch does that. Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
I'll post
> This switches Ada from using [enabled by default] to [warning enabled
> by default] for consistency with:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00549.html
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if the above patch goes in?
As I just mentioned, this isn't OK at first sight.
Arno
> IMO the natural assumption is that gnu++11 is enabled by default, which is
> how Lars also read it.
>
> There seemed to be support for using "warning enabled by default" instead,
> so this patch does that. Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK to install?
>
> I'll post an Ada patch separately.
FWIW
On 2/9/2014 3:03 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
This switches Ada from using [enabled by default] to [warning enabled
by default] for consistency with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00549.html
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if the above patch goes in?
I would say hold off on
On 2/9/2014 3:00 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
We print "[-Wfoo]" after a warning that was enabled by the -Wfoo option,
which is pretty clear. But for warnings that have no -W option we just
print "[enabled by default]", which leads to the question of _what_ is
enabled by default. As shown by:
This switches Ada from using [enabled by default] to [warning enabled
by default] for consistency with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-02/msg00549.html
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. OK if the above patch goes in?
Thanks,
Richard
gcc/ada/
* erroutc.adb (Output_Msg_Text): Use "[
We print "[-Wfoo]" after a warning that was enabled by the -Wfoo option,
which is pretty clear. But for warnings that have no -W option we just
print "[enabled by default]", which leads to the question of _what_ is
enabled by default. As shown by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00234.ht
22 matches
Mail list logo
