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: Warning annoyances in list_read.c


On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here.  If someone turns
>> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
>> > tree that triggers that warning.  There is ZERO value to this warning,
>> > but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess.
>>
>> Your absolutist view is just an opinion and reasonable people disagree
>> on the value of the warning. It's already found bugs in real code.
>>
>> You could continue being upset, or somebody who understands the code
>> could just fix the warnings and everybody can get on with their lives.
>
> Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough".  I'll
> note other have concerns.  Here's one example:

Also "other people have concerns" doesn't refute that it's just an
opinion, and not everybody shares that opinion.

"THIS IS WRONG, YOU MUST FIX IT" is unproductive. Somebody could
disable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for the Fortran front-end, or add the
fallthrough comments, and stop wasting the time of everybody who reads
the gcc@ list. If the code is 100% correct and there is no chance of
accidentally omitted break statements in the Fortran front-end then
just disable the warning, it's not meant for infallible programmers.


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