X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 14:45:39 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
X-Sender: pavenis AT ieva06
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc-l.opt
In-Reply-To: <9003-Sat06Apr2002200514+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10204071439340.28686-100000@ieva06>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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



On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > 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.
> 

Putting on warnings itself only does not harm. Perhaps we only should
avoid adding -Werror there yet, before the warnings are fixed

Andris