This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough". I'll
> > note other have concerns. Here's one example:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00300.html
> >
> > Without Bernd's patch to set the default to 1 you will drown
> > in false positives once you start using gcc-7 to build a whole
> > distro. On my Gentoo test box anything but level 1 is simply
> > unacceptable, because you will miss important other warnings
> > in the -Wimplicit-fallthrough noise otherwise.
>
> The quotation doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion,
> which is the general usefulness of the warning.
> It only talks about one of the (admittedly over-engineered) six
> different levels of the warning.
>
Yes, it does. See the part about "... drown in false positives ..."
Whoever turned this option on should have been prepared to deal
with the fallout by investigating each and every warning (i.e.,
either fix a real bug or (un)fix valid code to prevent the false
positive).
But that's okay. I now understand that it is acceptable for
a developer to commit a change that causes issues for other
developers, and said developer can turn a blind eye.
--
Steve
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow