This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: -Werror policy
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:31:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: -Werror policy
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411132331520 dot 5050 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20141114001831 dot 8C7CF2C3B16 at topped-with-meat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411140028450 dot 5050 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20141124221810 dot 391AC2C3B20 at topped-with-meat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411242313250 dot 11608 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20141124235522 dot D37652C3AC8 at topped-with-meat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1411250013120 dot 11608 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20141125001531 dot 2A8942C3ADB at topped-with-meat dot com>
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > Moreover, as a reviewer, I will notice the slot where the explanation is
> > > supposed to be because an empty macro argument or a stubby-looking string
> > > will stick out like a sore thumb and make me remember the whole issue about
> >
> > I don't think it will - plenty of macros can be used with arguments that
> > may or may not be empty (or an empty string, etc.).
>
> But ,, or ,"", never passes by my eye without me thinking about what it's for.
I don't think that's generically the case for reviewers.
What about naming a macro DIAG_PUSH_NEEDS_COMMENT or similar? (I prefer
that to DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT to avoid risking the version number
field ending up on a separate line from the DIAG_IGNORE_NEEDS_COMMENT word
and so not being readily greppable for.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com