On 21 February 2017 at 15:05, Bruno Haible <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Reuben, > > > For example, would it be sensible to have a single spec file, with each > > row as follows: > > > > warning language-list comment > > > > i.e. the first and third columns as at present, and the second giving the > > languages for which the flag is used? > > In my opinion > > 1) How to specify the set of options to avoid is orthogonal to the C vs C++ > consideration. >
Sorry, I think I confused things, I should have said "the second giving the list of languages for which the flag is [explicitly] disabled". 2) I find the usage approach from > https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/manywarnings.html > to be just as easy to use as a .spec file, and furthermore it is more > flexible: > - It allows to use different sets of warnings for clang than for gcc > (remember that clang disguises as gcc). You need a line such as > CC_BRAND=`LC_ALL=C $CC --version | sed -e '2,$d' -e 's/ .*//'` # > either gcc or clang > to distinguish them. > - It allows multiline descriptions why a warning is avoided. > I agree, I use this approach. Maybe I misunderstood what the specfile is for: I thought it was a way to generate and check the list of warning flags to go in manywarnings.m4, not something one would directly use in a project. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
