This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/30334] Request for -Wundefined
- From: "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Jul 2008 09:26:21 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/30334] Request for -Wundefined
- References: <bug-30334-1000@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 09:26 -------
I think -Wundefined should warn for any potential undefined and unspecified
behaviour. I know they are not the same according to the standard but for a
practical point of view they both result in a behaviour that is not properly
defined and may change without notice. Most users do not know the difference
and I would argue that most of them don't even care. Having to distinct flags
would be cumbersome.
There are a few warnings already in GCC that would fall under this definition
and most of them are enabled by default and unconditionally. Therefore, this
warning should probably also be enabled by default as -Woverflow is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334