This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -Wuninitialized issues
> What we're in disagreement about is whether or not that class of
> warnings should be triggered by -Wuninitialized. I STRONGLY believe
> that -Wuninitialized should remain as-is in its documented behavior
> and that we should have a distinct switch to get the new behavior.
Fine, but which of the two possible new behaviors did you mean? Is it
late detection (option 3) or early+late (option 4) from your summary?
I vote option 3 over option 4, regardless of the default.
If we leave -Wuninitialized unchanged, I think the new behavior should
be triggered by -Wuninitialized=2 rather than a new flag name.
> At this point I'm so bloody frustrated by this discussion that I'm
> about ready to throw the trivial changes over the wall and let someone
> else deal with the problem.
> Jeff
You asked for opinions on the default for -Wuninitialized just
yesterday. <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00040.html> I brought
up reasons for wanting the consistent warning set, not to justify
having the switch (which I see we agree on), but to justify maiking my
view the default for -Wuninitialized. Clearly we disagree, that's
life. If you were only interested in concurring opinions, you should
have said that and I could have saved myself some typing. :-/
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu