On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 19:00, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2012, at 3:03 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 20:00, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For me the goal of the warning is to warn about non-portable code, not > >> annoy > >> people. Format specifiers and format string extensions covered by POSIX > >> are > >> by definition portable on POSIX-compliant systems. So I raise the question > >> of whether or not we should warn about these at all? > > > > I agree that a good warning about non-portable code, that could be > > turned on by default or as part of -Wall, would be the ideal. > > > > However, we're not there yet. In the meantime, I think having a > > warning under -pedantic that warns about non-ISO C format strings > > makes sense. I agree that it would be extremely annoying to warn about > > POSIX extensions by default, but under -pedantic I think users would > > expect to get warnings about these, just as with GCC. > > Ok, I'm fine with this approach (putting under -pedantic), but should we put > it under a separate warning group (that is activated by > -Wformat-non-standard). That way people could turn off these warnings if all > the care about is POSIX compatibility by still keep the rest of the > portability warnings. > > > > > Maybe the wording of the warnings and the name of the flag could be > > changed to make this intention more clear. I agree that just saying > > "non-standard" is a bit vague in the light of some of these features > > actually being standardized under POSIX. > > I think improving the wording would help quite a bit. What is "standard" is > also a moving target, so saying what the "standard" is might help a great > deal (e.g., C99). It also may just add confusion. Another way is to have > -Wformat-posix-extensions, which is activated by -Wformat-non-standard (as I > suggested above), and just have a parenthetical note in the warning that says > "POSIX extension".
Attaching a new patch that re-names the warning flag and rewords the warnings a little bit. Hopefully this makes it much more clear. Thanks, Hans
positional-arguments-warning2.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
