This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should -Wjump-misses-init be in -Wall?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra<amodra@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:45:52PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Joe Buck wrote:
>>> I think that this should be the standard: a warning belongs in -Wall if
>>> it tends to expose bugs. ?If it doesn't, then it's just somebody's idea
>>> of proper coding style but with no evidence in support of its correctness.
>>>
>>> A -Wall warning should expose bugs, and should be easy to silence in
>>> correct code.
>>
>> To understand what you are saying, we need to know what bug means, since
>> it can have two meanings:
>>
>> 1. An actual error, that could show up right now in certain circumstances
>>
>> 2. An error resulting in undefined behavior in the standard, but
>> for the current version of gcc, it cannot actually cause any real
>> misbehavior, but some future version of gcc might take advantage
>> of this error status and do something weird.
>>
>> For me it is enough if warnings expose case 2 situations, even if
>> they find few if any case 1 situations.
>
> I agree, but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
> or even -Wextra. ?Why? ?I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
> unless you care about C++ style.
I do not think it is useless for C99 codes because C99 allows
C++ style declarations/initialization in the middle of a block.
-- Gaby