This is the mail archive of the 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 Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn <> wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar <> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>>>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
>>>>>> -W1: default
>>>>>> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
>>>>>> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
>>>>> ?I like this suggestion a lot.
>>> Me too!
>>> I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long
>>> hard-to-type not-necessarily-easy-to-remember switch
>>> names.
>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>> creates another set of confusion.
> ?What's the problem? ?The greater the number, the more warnings you get. ?Simple.

Not necessarily.

By contrast, -Wname suggest switch warning you could expect.
Note also that "short" does not need to be a number.

>> ?Geodelization is great
>> for machines, hardly so as human interface.
> ?I don't think the incompleteness theorem is remotely relevant here.

It is the process, not the end end result.

> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK

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