This is the mail archive of the 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 01:51:45PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Tim Hollebeek <> 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.


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