This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
c/7653: Define -W strictly in terms of other warning flags
- From: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- To: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Aug 2002 14:30:18 -0000
- Subject: c/7653: Define -W strictly in terms of other warning flags
- Reply-to: ac131313 at redhat dot com
>Number: 7653
>Category: c
>Synopsis: Define -W strictly in terms of other warning flags
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: change-request
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Tue Aug 20 07:36:02 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: ac131313@redhat.com
>Release: unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
Assuming I'm reading the current manual correctly, the
-W option is a combination of the following existing
options:
o -Wreturn-type
o -Wsign-compare
o -Wmissing-braces
And also:
o An automatic variable can be clobered by a setjmp/longjmp.
o An expression statement has no side effects.
o ``static'' doesn't come first.
o (x<=y ? 1 : 0) <= z} vs {x<=y<=z}
o A function returning ``const''.
o Missing initalizers for an aggregate.
o The -Wunused side effect.
Suggest defining -W strictly in terms of other -W options.
More -W options would need to be added.
>How-To-Repeat:
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: