>>>> So I guess the warning stays. We can discuss some extensions which makes
>>>> it easier to code such restrictions like merging parts of the tue branch.
>>>>
>>> Could the warning not simply be switched off and on (or set to some kind of
>>> level) by a {$... line ?
>>
>> It is on the to-do list already. However, I don't think it'll be the end
>> of the discussions; there will always be tension between the compiler
>> being helpfull to signal dubious code, and the compiler generating too
>> much noise.
>
> The compiler will be used in different ways by different people for different
> needs. Thus,
> viewpoints will differ ands that means that discussions about the pros and
> contras of a specific
> warning can be endless. The way out, I believe, is an infrastructure where
> individual warnings can
> be put on and off, like gpc and gcc have, e.g. see
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.2.2/gcc/Warning-Options.html>. I believe
> I heard that it is
> on
> the todo list ?
Correct. It is already on the todo list for almost 10 years. For the current
developpers it has
very low priority, so don't expect anything soon.
Peter
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
