[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule

From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: RFC: explicit empty right-hand side of a rule
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:05:56 +0100

Le 5 févr. 2013 à 04:03, Joel E. Denny <address@hidden> a écrit :

> Hi Akim,
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> I feel that using %empty should be all or nothing, so any occurrence
>> or %empty should enable -Wempty-rule, right?
> Makes sense.  Would -Wno-empty-rule still disable it?

I have no strong opinion about this.  I'd go for the simplest
implementation, which is to enable the warning when we meet
%empty, regardless of whether -Wno-empty-rule was specified.
But I'm open to other opinions (which would requite three
states for the warning flags, instead of just two, not too big
a deal).

>>> Also, in gcc and clang, -Wall does not include the default warnings.  
>>> It's a separate category.  Quite a misnomer.  Maybe we should just not 
>>> have a -Wall.
>> We already have one.  I have tried to model Bison's diagnostic interface
>> to the one of gcc/clang.  In this regard, it would be weird not to support
>> -Wall, which is fairly traditional.
> I misunderstood your proposal when you mentioned -Weverything.  I realize 
> now you meant that -Wempty-rule would be included in -Weverything but not 
> in -Wall because the latter might be in widespread use.  Right?
> If we really want -Wall to work like gcc's, then should -Wno-all also 
> behave like gcc's?  That is, perhaps it shouldn't disable default 
> warnings?

I am not yet convinced that we really want something
more than -Wall, I was thinking aloud, throwing ideas
to see if someone picks them :)

Do you think we should go in that direction?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]