This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a warning to implement
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com (Gabriel Dos Reis), tim at hollebeek dot com, Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com (Bernard Dautrevaux), 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: 05 Feb 2002 23:48:19 +0100
- Subject: Re: a warning to implement
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200202052151.NAA14689@atrus.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <email@example.com> writes:
| > 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.
I'm skeptical: New warnings were added, but not in -Wall, and yet
people got aware of it.