Re: [RFC] ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero warning in Wextra

["Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez" <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>]

On 20/12/06, Dave Korn <dave.korn@artimi.com> wrote:
> On 17 December 2006 12:56, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez wrote:
> > For me, the
> > best would be to NOT enable the warning for Wextra, so I don't need to
> > come up with a name for this warning flag. Otherwise, we would have to
> > document that the warning is enabled by both pedantic and Wextra, so a
> > user won't be surprised when the warning does not go away by using the
> > Wno-* form just because pedantic is enabled.
>
>   Well, the intent was clearly to enable the warning for Wall (later Wextra) in addition to pedantic, so I would suggest that in the absence of a positive reason to revert it, you should extend the second clause to cover Wextra as well.

Since you are the only one who answered to this, I will do exactly
that. Although, my intent is to name the warning, something like
Wordered-pointer-comparison, and enabled by Wextra and pedantic but it
can be disabled with Wno-ordered-pointer-comparison.

>   Heh.  Or you could always make it a divide-by-zero error instead :)

Oh, sorry. I didn't get this. If you would be so kind to elaborate...

Thanks for replying,

Manuel