On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>>>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually >>>>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which >>>>>> creates another set of confusion. >>>>> What's the problem? The greater the number, the more warnings you get. >>>>> Simple. >>>> Not necessarily. >>> Your argument makes no sense. >> >> Do you think that assertion makes sens when no evidence is >> provided to support it? > > My assertion was backed up by the sentences immediately after it, you can't > just take it out of context and expect it to stand by yourself. Here's the > evidence coming up right now: > >>> You said that there was a problem because >>> people will expect numbered -W options to be ordinal. >> >> What is nonsensical there? > > Well stop interrupting and let me finish! The very next sentence points out > what is nonsensical about your statement: > >>> But they *are* ordinal. >> >> Now? What is the order? > > Zero, then one, then two, then three. Are we having a language difficulty > here? You can't really be asking me what the ordinal sequence of the > integers is.
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*. > >>> So people's expectations will be correct. You haven't said anything about >>> where the problem is yet, you've just asserted that there will be one >>> without >>> demonstration or evidence, so again I ask: What's the problem? >> >> You said the greater the number the more warnings you get, but you did not >> show that would happen, so you have not shown that would necessarily happen. >> What is nonsensical there? > > You appear to have forgotten what we're talking about, so let me remind you: I did not forget about it, if you had a doubt. >>>>>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) >>>>>> -W1: default >>>>>> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall >>>>>> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra I have given up on touching -Wall in any menaingful way (either turning it on by default or moving warnings out of it, e.g. -Wununsed). Other useful warnings are left out of this scheme > > There will be more warnings the greater the number because that is how it > was defined to work. The "default" will be the suggestion we've been > discussing so far, i.e. effectively -Wall with a few of the less useful > warnings removed. > >>> It works just fine for -O, >> >> Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily >> generate faster or better code when n is higher. > > Exactly, just like how it would be with warnings. If you agree with that, then that is even more reason I am not convinced by the scheme. I would rather see a scheme that gives more useful warnings than just cranking up warnings, just any warning to get higher number. I suspect that is the real issue, not language issue. > -On when n is higher uses > more optimisations, some of which may be problematic - we're warned that -O3 > may be unstable, and similarly -W3 may turn on warnings that are more of a > hinderance than a help. yes, I am unkeen on repeating that. > > cheers, > DaveK > >
