This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Subject: Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:37:40 -0800
- CC: ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu, aj at suse dot de, dewar at gnat dot com, dkorn at pixelpower dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, robertlipe at usa dot net
- References: <20010112223432.7B62E34D80@nile.gnat.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> From: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:34:32 -0500 (EST)
> <<Why do we have unfixable warnings in -Wall? They're not supposed to
> be there.
> I am not sure what this means, any warning can be wrong sometimes .. yes
> you can always fix them in the sense of rewriting (e.g. in super standard
> ANSI C), but sometimes that's too big a burden.
The definition of -Wall is:
This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users
consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to
prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros.
If rewriting is 'too big a burden', I suspect that means the warning
is not 'easy to avoid', and so it should not be in -Wall.
- Geoffrey Keating <firstname.lastname@example.org>