Re: RFC: option to toggle dtc checks on and off

[Jamie Iles <jamie-wmLquQDDieKakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 02:17:14PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 01:38:12PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:19:41PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 08:07:30AM -0600, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> > > > > Jon, I was hoping I'd get some comment on this patch eventually.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry/ .
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:15:25PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > > > > Here is a draft patch which adds a -C option to dtc, allowing
> > > > > > individual semantic checks to be turned on and off.  It also allows
> > > > > > indivudual checks to be set as triggering either warnings or errors.
> > > > 
> > > > Turning checks on and off:  good.
> > > > 
> > > > > > I have a couple of concerns about it in its present form.  First, the
> > > > > > current syntax is that "-C -checkname" disables a check, "-C
> > > > > > checkname" turns a check on as a warning and "-C +checkname" turns it
> > > > > > on as an error.  I'm not convinced this is a great syntax.
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, that's sub-obtimal.
> > > > What about using something like "-E checkname" and "-W checkname"?
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I though of that too.  Can't remeber why I didn't go that way.
> > > Gets a bit weird if you specify both -E foo and -W foo, but "last one
> > > wins" is probably still a reasonable way of deciding that.  Any
> > > thoughts for an option to turn a check off completely?
> > 
> > How about the way that GCC handles warnings: -Wcheckname to enable, 
> > -Wno-checkname to disable?
> 
> Perhaps.  What should the semantics of -Wno-foo be when "foo" is an
> error level check by default?

Yes, that does get a little messy, but we could just adopt the GCC 
convention in that certain things are errors and always will be.  For 
everything else, enable with -Wfoo, disable with -Wno-foo and add a 
-Werror that turns warnings into errors?

Jamie