On 03/31/2016 09:39 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the
On 01/04/16 04:39, Martin Sebor wrote:
At the same time, having the ability to do what PR 70275 asks for
(i.e., suppress only warnings that have not be been explicitly
enabled or elevated to errors) can be handy as well. If it's
preferable to keep -w unchanged, providing a new option to do it
On 03/31/2016 10:30 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Segher Boessenkool:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
> >> >>he
* Segher Boessenkool:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
>> >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
>> >>flag the
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
> >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
> >>flag the warning/error about a control
On 30/03/16 00:01, Joseph Myers wrote:
If we consider that -Wno-general implies -Wno-specific and
-Werror=specific implies -Wspecific,@equal levels of indirection, then
the order of the options on the command line is what determines whether
-Wspecific is enabled (as an error). If however we
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The general rule of thumb documented in the manual is that more
> specific options take precedence over more general ones, regardless
> of where they appear on the command line:
>
> The combined effect of positive and negative forms [of warning
>
I apologize for stating that you had reported the issue. I copy/pasted from
your comment rather than the original report.
The issue was reported by Teodor Petrov
Kevin
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" wrote:
> > On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> In
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void
function, due to the presence of the "-w"
On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void
function, due to the presence of the "-w"
> In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though
> he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't
> flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void
> function, due to the presence of the "-w" option. He points out that
> clang++
In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though he
provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't flag the
warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void function, due to
the presence of the "-w" option. He points out that clang++ wtill flags
13 matches
Mail list logo