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] |
* Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> [051102 19:28]:Jeff Law wrote: >> I prefer consistency in warnings, regardless of optimization level. >I disagree and I think we have a significant contingency of >users that would disagree
Jeff, I completely agree with you for some class of users (users being developers who use GCC but don't hack on GCC itself).
OTOH, there is also a very large class of users (like myself) who have to write code that works well across several different compilers.
..Why do you have to do something about a warning that is a clear false positive?
I'd much prefer a warning about a "may be used uninitialized" on less clever compiler over the change to lose a "is used unitialized" warning some future more clever compiler may find
-- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |