This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Please, take '-Wmisleading-indentation' out of -Wall
- From: Patrick Palka <patrick at parcs dot ath dot cx>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Antonio Diaz Diaz <antonio at gnu dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:15:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: Please, take '-Wmisleading-indentation' out of -Wall
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <572A2029 dot 6030106 at gnu dot org> <CA+C-WL-zV_Ds3KFQt41eKyZgjhD8LhhO0jp+24zNFpxDRYBFvA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160530170645 dot GU28550 at tucnak dot redhat dot com>
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:01:09PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> I'm sad that this discussion died so soon without Antonio's points
>> being adequately addressed.
> But how do you want to address that? His point is that it does not belong
> into -Wall, while there seems to be a wide agreement that it should be part
> of -Wall, it found lots of real bugs in wide range of code, and for projects
> that just want to use weirdo formatting styles they always have option to
> opt-out, using -Wno-misleading-indentation.
Yeah, I guess you're right. There is nothing really left to address
since the remaining points of contention are mostly subjective, like
as to whether or not the warnings emitted by -Wmisleading-indentation
are sufficiently easy to work around as required by the criteria of
-Wall. (In some cases it may require re-indenting huge blocks of
code, for example, but that's still mechanically easy I guess.)
Though there are some inconsistencies regarding the inclusiveness of
-Wall seeing as neither -Woverlength-strings nor -Wempty-body are
enabled by -Wall even though they seemingly satisfy the criteria of
-Wall more readily than -Wmisleading-indentation does.