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: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?

From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:52:20 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
References: <m38wjnjxnx.fsf@google.com> <20090620065615.GA4553@gmx.de> <m3zlc3idxe.fsf@google.com> <6dc9ffc80906200617l11b20d48qe02297b261d46baa@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in 
> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C, 
> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will make gcc 4.5.0 unusable 
> to those people.

A warning is a warning is a warning and hardly should make GCC unusable.

I bet that the breakage (not warnings) of third party code that libstdc++ 
has been causing with the two latest release series is causing quite a lot 
more headache...

Gerald

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
  - From: Ralf Wildenhues
- Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
  - From: H.J. Lu

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