[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Let's fix how warnings are specified
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Let's fix how warnings are specified |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:57:55 -0500 |
Hello all,
At present, compile-time warnings can only be enabled, not disabled, and
there is no way to enable all warnings. This means that the set of
warnings has to be hard-coded into every build system. This is terrible
because it means that every time we add a new warning type, users won't
benefit from it unless they update their Makefiles.
We need a way for users to ask for a reasonable default set of warnings
(which should be almost all of them), possibly with some warnings
explicitly enabled or disabled. We should also have a way to enable all
warnings.
It would also be nice if this could be done in such a way that external
build systems can do this without breaking compatibility with Guile
2.0.[0-5].
I'm looking for ideas of how to adjust our 'compile' and 'guild compile'
interfaces to accomplish these objectives.
Here's a preliminary proposal:
* Add new pseudo-warning types 'all' and 'default'.
* For each specific warning type 'FOO', we add 'no-FOO'.
* These new pseudo-warning types would be honored by both
'compile' and 'guild compile'.
What do you think?
Mark
- Let's fix how warnings are specified,
Mark H Weaver <=