On 15/10/16 16:40, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 15/10/16 05:47, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> I tried to build the coreutils using very recent GCC 7, built from >>> latest git, and encountered a few new warnings (errors when configured >>> with --enable-gcc-warnings), so wrote the following to address them. >>> With these, everything now compiles warning free: >> >> All look good. >> >> I had a similar idea to die() with errorx() at: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2016-07/msg00038.html > > The mixed semantics of "error" have been an annoyance for a long time. > Do you prefer the "errorx" name over "die"? > I have a slight preference for "die" because it is short and clear, > but perhaps more at risk of collision with existing name in some > project. When talking about this for grep, Paul proposed "dierror". > Eventually, we'd like to move this into gnulib, so coming up with a > good name is not an idle exercise.
die() is better. shorter and more obvious. Also the implementation is better as it's not a runtime wrapper, but a compile time check wrapper. I was just mentioning errorx() because I thought the concept a good idea. > >> It seems like die() would be good in more cases. >> The two here: >> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=commitdiff;h=558ce30 >> and the others noted by Bernhard: >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2016-07/msg00039.html > > Definitely useful in many other places. That would be good for a > follow-on patch. This one was focused on fixing warnings. I did not > want to dilute it with the global no-semantic-change patch to switch > to using "die" wherever possible. True. I'll do the follow up patch to use in more places. thanks! Pádraig
