This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a warning to implement
- From: Tim Hollebeek <tim at hollebeek dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, tim at hollebeek dot com, Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>, dewar at gnat dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, coola at ngs dot ru, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pcarlini at unitus dot it
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:07:01 -0500
- Subject: Re: a warning to implement
- References: <email@example.com> <200202052151.NAA14689@atrus.synopsys.com>
- Reply-to: tim at hollebeek dot com
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Tim Hollebeek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> If we add a new warning to -Wall, people will discover bugs in their code
> quickly. If we add a new warning but not to -Wall, 99% of gcc users will
> be unaware of the new warning and never use it.
Exactly. The burden is on those who oppose the warning to demonstrate
that a significant number (at least 1%!!) would be inconvenienced.
This, of course, assumes that noone gets a warning that cannot be
avoided by rewriting their code. But no such case has been posted,
and no credible case for the existence of such code has been made.