On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: >> >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" > > IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever > added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to compiler options. It should > be removed (especially if is has been added to -Wall). > > You can also probably add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough to > libgfortran/configure.ac at > > # Add -Wall -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring if we are using GCC. > if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > AM_FCFLAGS="-I . -Wall -Werror -fimplicit-none -fno-repack-arrays > -fno-underscoring" >
Problem I have is I don't know who to complain to. I think there is a bit of a glass wall going on here anyway, so what would be the point of complaining if the retrievers of the message all have the ON-OFF switch in the OFF position. (After all, I do not have a PHD, I am not a computer science graduate, why bother looking down ones nose at a low life such as myself, OMG its an engineer, what the hell does he know.) Maybe these warnings are being turned on as a matter of policy, but truth is, when I build 50 times a day, the warnings flying by are masking the errors or other warnings that may be important. For example, I inadvertently passed a ptr to a function rather than the *ptr. The warning that ensued flew by mixed in with all the other crap warnings and I did not see it. That cost me wasted cycle time (remember, I am not an expert and should not be expected to see such things. Hell, for that matter I should not even be doing any of this work. :) Cheers everybody, its been dark and gray all day. Jerry
