-Werror policy

[Joseph Myers]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Yury Gribov wrote:

> I'm not sure: the knowledge that error suppression is explained elsewhere is
> implicit in code.  So if e.g. someone works on surrounding code and removes
> the master comment, all other suppressions will become undocumented.  This
> would be hard to spot during reviews.

Well, the master comment can state that it applies to other instances 
below as well.

> > And normal code readability indicates putting the multi-line
> > comment above the macro call rather than embedding it in a macro argument.
> 
> Concrete syntax is not an issue, just throw in more sed.

I think any check from the makefile is overcomplicating things (and the 
question isn't whether there's a comment, it's whether there's a comment 
explaning the warning suppression rather than some other aspect of the 
code).

Again, the point of -Werror is primarily is to avoid changes to code 
introducing new warnings by accident.  Elaborate schemes around warning 
control might improve quality in some circumstances but should come later, 
once we have the basic infrastructure to avoid warning regressions, rather 
than gating the use of -Werror.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com