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]

Re: RFC: -Wall by default


On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar<dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

The people who don't want -Wall (or -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.


I see no evidence that supports that guess. On the contrary, I
would guess that if -Wall is set by default,

so your evidence to the contrary is a guess ;-p

Yes, of course, though based to some extent on our experience with warnings that are enabled by default in GNAT, we often get newbie questions that complain about these warnings, it is somewhat inevitable, that if you have people who do not know the language, they will find some quite legitimate warnings puzzling, especially if they are false positives (we really try VERY hard to avoid false positives in the default set of warnings .. to me the trouble with -Wall is that it generates lots of false positives.

Now a -Wstandard that is crafted with a different design goal than
-Wall (avoid false positives at all costs) would be quite a different
matter, and that is why I have supported this approach if anything
at all is done.

Basically in GNAT we regard it as a bug to work on if a default
warning is a false positive (certainly not an attitude that is
taken with -Wall, if I am wrong, I have hundreds of bugs to
report :-)) Yes, occasionally you get a case that you end up
considering SO obscure that you violate this rule, but it is
rare.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]