Re: Suppressing specific compiler warnings

[llewelly at xmission dot com]

Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:

> > 
> > Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > > One general and significant drawback of these complex schemes
> > > for naming or numbering warnings is that they make it
> > > significantly more work to introduce new warnings, and that
> > > is an unfortunate scenario.
> > 
> > Part of my proposal of a year ago was to have the name be supplied
> > as part of the warning, so you'd say something like
> > 
> >   if (...)
> >     WARN(unbuttoned_fly, "your fly is unbuttoned");
> > 
> > where WARN is a macro that would expand into
> > "if (warn_unbuttoned_fly) warn (...);" etc.
> > 
> > Whatever the details of the scheme, the mass of warning control
> > infrastructure should be auto-constructed.
> 
> To me if someone does not want any warning they then should not
> care fo any, as the warnings in gcc are usually for there for a
> reason, like someone if gcc got bitten by that construct, aka
> signed vs unsinged warning.

GCC has a few warning flags, such as -Weffc++, whose utility is
    strongly dependent on the style the code is written in, and a few
    others, such as -Wunitialized, which are usually desireable, but
    sometimes need to be turned off when one has an unusual need, such
    as avoid unecessary initialization of a multi-megabyte array which
    is going to be filled with input.