From patchwork Sun Aug 15 18:26:50 2010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gerald Pfeifer X-Patchwork-Id: 61754 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D55E6B6F14 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:27:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8654 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2010 18:26:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 8645 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2010 18:26:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:26:52 +0000 Received: from acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F1D1E04F; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:26:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:26:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Diego Novillo cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= Subject: Re: [patch] Document handling of unrecognized -Wno- options In-Reply-To: <20100415165012.GA17409@google.com> Message-ID: References: <20100415165012.GA17409@google.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote: > +When an unrecognized warning label is requested (e.g., > +@option{-Wunknown-warning}), GCC will emit a diagnostic stating > +that the option is not recognized. However, if the @samp{-Wno-} form > +is used, the behavior is slightly different: No diagnostic will be > +produced for @option{-Wno-unknown-warning} unless other diagnostics > +are being produced. This allows the use of new @option{-Wno-} options > +with old compilers, but if something goes wrong, the compiler will > +warn that an unrecognized option was used. I noticed that the committed patch has "warning label", not "warning option" so it looks like you committed the older version of the patch without this change, Diego? (Cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00905.html) Also, I changed @samp to @option in one instance to be consistent. Installed. Gerald 2010-08-15 Gerald Pfeifer * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Fix terminology and markup in the description of how unknown warning options are handled. Index: doc/invoke.texi =================================================================== --- doc/invoke.texi (revision 163027) +++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy) @@ -2863,9 +2863,9 @@ language-specific options also refer to @ref{C++ Dialect Options} and @ref{Objective-C and Objective-C++ Dialect Options}. -When an unrecognized warning label is requested (e.g., +When an unrecognized warning option is requested (e.g., @option{-Wunknown-warning}), GCC will emit a diagnostic stating -that the option is not recognized. However, if the @samp{-Wno-} form +that the option is not recognized. However, if the @option{-Wno-} form is used, the behavior is slightly different: No diagnostic will be produced for @option{-Wno-unknown-warning} unless other diagnostics are being produced. This allows the use of new @option{-Wno-} options