This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: Criteria for a warning to be in -Wall? (was: Re: a warning to implement)


On Feb  7, 2002, Robert Lipe <robertlipe@usa.net> wrote:

> But for plain old scalars in C, I just don't think this is a
> warn-able offense - esp. when the most common occurrence of it to
> date has been to avoid a warning.

As Joe Buck pointed out, we *do* warn about the use of the
uninitialized variable when writing `int a = a;'.  I'm pretty sure we
didn't before, but now we do.  So, the whole point with which I
regretfully started this debate is moot.  Looks like another case of a
warning that should only be emitted in the presence of the flags
`-flame -War'.  Apparently, I've become an expert in generating those
:-/

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer


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