This is not true, "all" specifies a level of -1....
all
Equivalent to specifying a level of zero (0).
...
JK
This is not true, "all" specifies a level of -1....
all
Equivalent to specifying a level of zero (0).
...
coderJeff wrote: One thing I would still like to fix, is that internally, '-w all' is actually equivalent to '-w -1'. That is, internally the warning level goes from -1 to 2 with the default level=0. I'd like to change that to 0 to 3 with the default level=1. What does that mean for users? well if they were using '-w level' in their builds, they would need to increment the level by 1 to get the same results.
Behaviour since at least version 0.14.fbc does not issue warning or error if the warning name itself is not valid. For example -w flarg, is not a recognized name for a warning. The compiler silently ignores this to allow command lines with warnings added in new versions of fbc to also be used with older versions of fbc without complaint.
jj2007 wrote:Sheer luxury would be an option to disable the silly warnings with SendMessage & friends
For example fbc -w none TmpFb.bas as in viewtopic.php?p=274595#p274585Compiler Option: -w wrote:-w none, or a significantly high level value will have the effect of suppressing all warning messages
That suppresses all warnings, including those that make sense. It would be nice to have an option that suppresses only the silly ones of the type "you passed a string but it should have been an LPARAM"coderJeff wrote:jj2007 wrote:Sheer luxury would be an option to disable the silly warnings with SendMessage & friendsFor example fbc -w none TmpFb.bas as in viewtopic.php?p=274595#p274585Compiler Option: -w wrote:-w none, or a significantly high level value will have the effect of suppressing all warning messages
We had that discussion two years ago:coderJeff wrote:The beginner user trying to learn MSDN / WinAPI and pointers would probably benefit from the warnings so they at least understand what's expected. And for veteran programmers like yourself the warnings simply do not matter and get in the way
The point is that certain Windows calls, in particular SendMessage, are not compatible with the way the compiler works. SendMessage wants integers, singles, pointers, handles - the compiler believes it needs exclusively a WPARAM and an LPARAM. The result is absolutely useless warnings.jj2007 wrote:If 10% of your lines in a simple (and correctly working) Windows GUI program get criticised with warnings, then there is definitely a problem to solve.
I didn't forget. Nor this from a year agojj2007 wrote:We had that discussion two years ago:
You seem quite knowledgeable and active on the forums. Some of your criticisms of freebasic are worth investigating. Honestly, I was kind of expecting (maybe just hoping) for a different kind of interaction. My mistake.jj2007 wrote:I do not have any stakes here. I have my own Basic dialect, definitely not meant for public use (it's assembler), and I don't need FB.