X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 20:05:14 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <9003-Sat06Apr2002200514+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200204061153.g36Br0M25451@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
	(nobody AT delorie DOT com)
Subject: Re: gcc-l.opt
References:  <200204061153 DOT g36Br0M25451 AT speedy DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: nobody AT delorie DOT com
> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:53:00 +0200 (CEST)
> 
> I haven't either yes or no to my proposal to add the same warnings to
> gcc-l.opt as gcc.opt, so I'll add them. And if you are unhappy, we'll
> remove them after some time.

IMHO, it doesn't make sense to turn on warnings if we don't intend to
do anything about the code they flag.  So I don't think these warnings
should be turned one before we fix the offending code fragments.