This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>,Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, dberlin at dberlin dot org,dje at watson dot ibm dot com, galibert at pobox dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:52:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
- References: <20050101171307.D95EB9611@nile.gnat.com> <email@example.com> <41DB5E89.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> >>But how useful? I would guess that virtually 100% of such warnings would
> >> be false positives, in the sense that they are not warning of situations
> >> in which the standard semantics would be fine. ...
> > IMO, this kind of thing is a really slippery slope.
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:27:05PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> We are talking about warnings here, so I don't see any slippery slope
Except for one key criterion: if we add a warning where there are likely
to be unsuppressable false positives, that warning cannot be included in
-Wall, as it breaks the commonly used "-Wall -Werror" combination that
is used for many projects.