This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a warning to implement
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: gdr at codesourcery dot com, tim at hollebeek dot com
- Cc: Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, coola at ngs dot ru,dewar at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, pcarlini at unitus dot it
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:25:18 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: a warning to implement
<<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.
And if this is not the case, I would consider adding them to -Wall :-)
The meaning of -Wall should be all warnings that meet the criteria that
Tim stated (very few false positives and easily silenced with an
equivalent construct). Note that my category of things that have clearly
undefined semantics should certainly meet this criterion, since
a) there should be certainly no false positives, in the sense that C code
should not contain any undefined constructs.
b) silencing them is always possible by replacing the incorrect code with
correct code :-)