Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-04-01 Thread Jeff Law
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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-04-01 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-31 Thread Martin Sebor
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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-31 Thread Segher Boessenkool
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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-31 Thread Florian Weimer
* 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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-31 Thread 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 warning/error about a control

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-30 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-29 Thread Joseph Myers
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 >

Re: Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-29 Thread kevin-tucker
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

Re: Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-29 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
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"

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-28 Thread Martin Sebor
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"

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-28 Thread Florian Weimer
> 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++

Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

2016-03-28 Thread kevin-tucker
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