This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: a warning to implement
- From: "Stephano Mariani" <sk dot mail at btinternet dot com>
- To: "'Joe Buck'" <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>,"'Gabriel Dos Reis'" <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: <tim at hollebeek dot com>,"'Gabriel Dos Reis'" <gdr at codesourcery 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 22:23:29 -0000
- Subject: RE: a warning to implement
Perhaps there should be an option to enable *all* warnings?
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2002 9 52
To: Gabriel Dos Reis
Cc: email@example.com; Gabriel Dos Reis; Bernard Dautrevaux;
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: Re: a warning to implement
> Tim Hollebeek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | > Please, note that I'm not saying that GCC should not have an
> | > trigger the proposed warning. I'm saying that that shouldn't be on
> | > default in -Wall.
> | Then noone will have it on (because it is such a rare case they
> | 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
quickly. If we add a new warning but not to -Wall, 99% of gcc users
be unaware of the new warning and never use it.