Re: Warning C vs C++

[Tommy Vercetti <vercetti at zlew dot org>]

On Monday 19 September 2005 01:10, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 06:54:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Generally speaking, we want -Wall to be safe to use.  gcc has some
> warnings that can't be silenced without making correct programs
> worse (-Weffc++ comes to mind); these are not included in -Wall.
>
> In that sense, -Wall effectively means "all the warnings we recommend
> that you use".  Some people might want to argue with this, but that
> is the practical effect.
Fair enough. Still - thou - I would kindly request adding singness warning as 
default in gcc. From security perspective, that's required. I would even 
generate errors on those, if you ask me, but I know this isn't quite normal 
for the rest of world. 

-- 
Vercetti