This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc Digest 20 Jun 2009 16:26:41 -0000 Issue 5996
- From: "Brian O'Mahoney" <omb at teraflex-bp dot dyndns dot org>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <dosreis at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:18:30 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc Digest 20 Jun 2009 16:26:41 -0000 Issue 5996
- Message_id: <200906210318.30469.omb@teraflex-bp.dyndns.org>
- Read-receipt-to: omb@bluewin.ch
- References: <1245515201.31269.ezmlm@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: omb at bluewin dot ch
- Replyto: omb@bluewin.ch
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will make gcc 4.5.0 unusable
>> to those people.
>
> A warning is a warning is a warning and hardly should make GCC unusable.
>I propose this:
>
> (1) if std=c99 or -std=gnu99, include the warning in -Wall
> (2) otherwise, include it in -Wextra
> Of course, it will always be part of -Wc++-compat.
I strongly agree, the last thing GCC needs is more noise on established
platforms, and/or false positive warnings
--
Greetings (mit freundlichen GrÃÃen), Brian.