This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: -Wall by default
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
>>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
>>> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
>>
>> It would even allow -Winf for the
>> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
>> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. ?Or
>> -Wover9000.
>
> Do we have bugzilla entry for that?
> -- Gaby
I forgot the remark about -Wover9000: for many GCC users
(that I eye-witnessed), not only -On is supposed to optimize more,
but n can go beyond 999999 and it will give you better code than
99999 or 3. One can argue they should be reading the manual,
but that is the whole point: many of them don't read the manual;
they look at a switch name and draw inference from there. There is
little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)