Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
As pointed out by JSM yesterday, it is not clear whether [1] should be
preferred over [2] or the converse. I think having two ways to
control the same diagnostic is a bit confusing. I think the
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, ...)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
