This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: -Wstrict-aliasing extension
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 13:24:38 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: -Wstrict-aliasing extension
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jim Wilson wrote:
I'm not crazy about the false positive. I have a strong bias against
warnings with false positives, which I think comes from my background in
error-checking tools. So, I guess I'm disinclined towards this patch.
But, not all that strongly.
A customer moving from gcc-2.9x to gcc-3.x ran into problems with
-fstrict-aliasing, and was disappointed that -Wstrict-aliasing did not
I'm also disinclined towards adding more warning options, since I think
it's already gotten very confusing for users. Unless we're willing to
go to the model where you have a list of error messages in a book, with
numbers/names, so that people can look them up easily and turn on/off
subsets of them. I think right now we add lots of command-line options
because that's easier than figuring out how to get warning groups that
really work well for people, and then our cleverest users figure out how
to get just what they want, but sometimes the less dedicated users
compare us unfavorably to the competition. On the other hand, since
this is definitely our existing practice and the warning could be useful
to some people, if you added it as a separate warning, I wouldn't object.