[cfe-dev] Warning options table

[Sebastian Redl]

Ted Kremenek wrote:
> Concerning your point above, I still think that warning groups need to
> be declarative, where a warning says (either implicitly or explicitly)
> that it is part of a warning group.  Explicitly having to declare
> warning groups seems highly suboptimal.
>
> We can then have a separate .td entry that tells how a warning group
> maps to a command-line option.
What is the point of warning groups, other than being able to control
several warnings with a single option? The organizational units (Sema,
Parse, ...) aside, I mean.

In the files I checked in, there aren't any warning groups any more
(again, not counting Sema & friends). There's warnings, and there's
warning options. Each warning option specifies which warnings it
controls, which I feel is exactly the way it should be. Purely for
convenience, a warning option can include all warnings of another
warning option by specifying that.

Sebastian