Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020817153530.01fa5590@pop3.cris.com>
X-Sender: rrschulz AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:37:28 -0700
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Randall R Schulz <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
Subject: Re: suggestion for cygwin gcc-3.2
In-Reply-To: <20020817214424.54443.qmail@web21003.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20020817160854 DOT GA1284 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Nicholas,

If this really bugs you so much, wrap the compiler in a script that filters 
the output to suppress the diagnostics you don't want to see. Then use the 
script instead of directly invoking the compiler. In Make, just override 
the default CC (or whatever) variable.

Randall "have it your way" Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 14:44 2002-08-17, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>--- Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:57:43AM +0000, Gareth Pearce wrote:
> > >>This may generate some flames, so flame away if you want to.
> > >
> > >Hmm I expected a few as well, but no replys - I better fix that at least.
> >
> > Maybe this will qualify as a flame.  People here often have very thin
> > skins, so...
>
>Didn't seem like it to me...
>
> > No.  I'm not going to make the cygwin gcc operate any differently
> > than the standard gcc 3.2.  The correct place to lobby for change
> > is in the gcc mailing lists.
>
>I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree.  It seems *quite*
>apparent, from the archives, that they won't listen to reason nor are
>they going to budge one iota.  If Gareth and DJ couldn't sway them,
>what chance do I have?  It is a waste of time to discuss this on the
>gcc list, thus the only outlet is this list.  Seriously, though, you
>have to admit that the warning is useless for the most part and
>causes more harm then good?  So what's the harm in changing the level
>of a trivial warning?  This is such an insignificant change that
>would hardly warrant us being labeled a "rogue branch" which doesn't
>comply with the gcc standards.  Gareth made some very good
>suggestions on how this could be approached, and I concur with his
>evaluation of the situation.
>
>Cheers,
>Nicholas


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/