This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: -Wall by default
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar <email@example.com> 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
>> 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.
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