Re: RFC: -Wall by default

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr (Dominique Dhumieres)]

> >> We do have regular requests for this, so it is not just out of thin
> >> air.
> >
> > Perhaps, but I think that changing the default like this is far too
> > invasive.  ?GCC should do what it's told, if a user asks for warnings,
> > give them, if they don't, then don't.
> 
> It is hard to define "what it is told" means -- we are already in gray
> zone.
> 
> > I suspect changing the default like this will generate a flood of
> > complaints.
> 
> Really?  Such as what?

At least me!-(how many "regular requests" compared to the number of gcc
users?).

> If we get floods of complaints, that can only that -Wall too many
> false positives;
> but I don't think it does.  We have been careful over the years to
> watch for that effect.

[macbook] gcc/work% grep ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED gcc/*.c | wc -l
    1060
[macbook] gcc/work% grep ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED gcc/*.h | wc -l
      21

Doesn't that count as "false positives"? While -Wunused can help to spot 
some "copy&paste" errors, most of the time the warning just reflects some 
harmless sloppyness.

IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as 
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am 
quasi-illiterate).


Dominique

PS -Wall is a simple enough option to be remembered by all users who need 
it (if they don't use it, they don't want it).