This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: a warning to implement


On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:37:52PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Tim Hollebeek <tim@hollebeek.com> writes:
> 
> | > Please, note that I'm not saying that GCC should not have an option to
> | > trigger the proposed warning. I'm saying that that shouldn't be on by
> | > default in -Wall.
> | 
> | Then noone will have it on (because it is such a rare case they won't
> | realize they might need it).
> 
> That argument is flawed:  there are plenty of warning not included in
> -Wall and yet actually used by people.

In almost all cases, those are warnings that are useful in particular
(not uncommon) situations, but have drawbacks that prevent them from
being useful in the general case.

Name a gcc warning that generates no false positives on 99% of code,
which can be silenced by replacement with an equivalent construct, and
is not part of -Wall.

-Tim


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]