Le 5 févr. 2013 à 04:03, Joel E. Denny <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi Akim, > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Akim Demaille wrote: > >> I feel that using %empty should be all or nothing, so any occurrence >> or %empty should enable -Wempty-rule, right? > > Makes sense. Would -Wno-empty-rule still disable it? I have no strong opinion about this. I'd go for the simplest implementation, which is to enable the warning when we meet %empty, regardless of whether -Wno-empty-rule was specified. But I'm open to other opinions (which would requite three states for the warning flags, instead of just two, not too big a deal). >>> Also, in gcc and clang, -Wall does not include the default warnings. >>> It's a separate category. Quite a misnomer. Maybe we should just not >>> have a -Wall. >> >> We already have one. I have tried to model Bison's diagnostic interface >> to the one of gcc/clang. In this regard, it would be weird not to support >> -Wall, which is fairly traditional. > > I misunderstood your proposal when you mentioned -Weverything. I realize > now you meant that -Wempty-rule would be included in -Weverything but not > in -Wall because the latter might be in widespread use. Right? > > If we really want -Wall to work like gcc's, then should -Wno-all also > behave like gcc's? That is, perhaps it shouldn't disable default > warnings? I am not yet convinced that we really want something more than -Wall, I was thinking aloud, throwing ideas to see if someone picks them :) Do you think we should go in that direction?
