[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

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

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?


reply via email to

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