Le 6 févr. 2013 à 01:44, Joel E. Denny <[email protected]> a écrit :
>>>>> 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? > > How about the following proposal? > > 1. -Wall will continue to mean all warnings rather than trying to mimic > gcc's -Wall. If someone specifies -Wall, he has no right to complain that > it enables a warning (such as -Wempty-rule) that he doesn't find useful. > He explicitly requested all warnings that Bison provides and might ever > provide. Now that I see a means to escape from Autoconf's dictate to use -y (by passing -o y.tab.c instead), I have started to see where -Wyacc should be used. But that triggers many warnings in Bison grammars, because of -Wyacc is part of -Wall. I don't think -Wall should include -Wyacc, that's really something different. Would someone object if -Wall meant "enable all the warnings except -Wyacc"?
