Re: [BBv2] warning support

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-17 12:17:50

Alexey Pakhunov wrote:
> Reece Dunn wrote:
> 
> > +feature warnings :
> > + default # use the compilers default warning settings
> > + on # turn warnings on
> > + off # turn warnings off
> > + all # enable all warnings
> > + : propagated ;
> > +
> 
> In my understanding the levels should be off -> default -> all. 
> Additional intermediate levels may be defined but 'on' and 'default' are 
> synonyms.

Not necessarily. You have the progression off -> default -> on -> all, 
where the meaning of "default" and "on" are implementation specific.

> Also the feature should not be 'propagated'. It should be 'free' because 
> it does not affect the result of compilation. It only affects the 
> warnings that will be displayed.

Thanks for the clarification... I will update this :).

>>+flags borland.compile OPTIONS <warnings>on : -w ;
>>+flags borland.compile OPTIONS <warnings>all : -w ;
>>+flags borland.compile OPTIONS <warnings-as-errors>on : -w! ;
> 
> Can 'OPTIONS' include both '-w' and '-w!' at the same time? We may have 
> both <warnings>on and <warnings-as-errors>on simultaneously.

The borland docs states that -w turns on all warnings and that -w! 
returns an error value from the compiler tool in the presence of 
warnings. It doesn't state if -w! also turns on all warnings.

I suppose, though, that -w should just be for <warnings>all.

>>+flags cw.compile CFLAGS <warnings>on : -w on ;
>>+flags cw.compile CFLAGS <warnings>off : -w off ;
>>+flags cw.compile CFLAGS <warnings>all : -w all ;
>>+flags cw.compile CFLAGS <warnings-as-errors>on : -w error ;
> 
> The same thing: are all four options mutually exclusive?

The -w on/off/all set the warning level and -w error treats warnings as 
errors. Thus, you can have
-w on -w error
without conflict. Having
-w on -w off
makes no sense and is not supported as you can't say <warnings>on 
<warnings>off!

- Reece