On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2018 07:05 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/03/2018 08:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jason, >>>>> >>>>> The manual mentions some C++-only options in the language >>>>> independent section 3.8 Options to Request or Suppress >>>>> Warnings and others in 3.5 Options Controlling C++ Dialect. >>>>> >>>>> For example, -Wcatch-value, -Wconditionally-supported, >>>>> and -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant are mentioned only >>>>> on the former page, while -Wabi-tag, -Wctor-dtor-privacy, >>>>> -Wliteral-suffix, and -Wclass-memaccess are mentioned only >>>>> on the latter. >>>>> >>>>> That makes C++ options harder to find than they should be. >>>>> It also makes it difficult to tell which C++ options are >>>>> included in -Wall or -Wextra. I think we should converge >>>>> on the same approach for all C++ options that doesn't have >>>>> these problems. What should it be? >>>>> >>>>> An approach that I think might work well is to continue >>>>> to mention even C++-only options in 3.8 but move their >>>>> descriptions to 3.5 (i.e., have the entry for each link >>>>> to the full description of the option on the C++ page). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds good. >>>> >>>>> Should I try to make this happen for GCC 8? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure. >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached is a prototype of what I have in mind. It changes >>> just one option for illustration: -Wclass-memaccess. Once >>> we're happy with the result I'll follow the same approach >>> for the rest of the C++ warning options. >>> >>> To make it possible to jump directly to the detailed option >>> I had to add an explicit anchor. That's an extra step that >>> would be nice to avoid. >> >> >> It would indeed be nice if there were a way to xref to an index entry. >> >>> The reference from -Wclass-memaccess >>> in 3.8 to the detailed option description in 3.5 renders like >>> this in HTML: >>> >>> See -Wclass-memaccess in Controlling C++ Dialect. >>> >>> and like this in PDF: >>> >>> See [Wclass-memaccess], page 52 in Section 3.5 [Controlling C++ >>> Dialect], >>> page 42. >> >> >> Do we need both page numbers? > > I don't see a way to avoid them if we keep both references.
Maybe leave out the second reference and add "Controlling C++ Dialect" to the text of the first reference instead? Jason
