This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
Am 2014-02-11 15:36, schrieb Richard Sandiford:
I thought the trend these days was to move towards -Werror, so that for many people the expected output is to get no warnings at all. And bear in mind that the kind of warnings that are not under -W control tend to be those that are so likely to be a mistake that no-one has ever had an incentive to make them optional. I find it hard to believe that significant numbers of users are not fixing the sources of those warnings and are instead requiring every release of GCC to produce warnings with a particular wording.
Hi,actually at my site we turn on more and more warnings into errors, but we do it warning by warning with more -Werror=..., so the fine-grained warning changes are really nice for us. The problem we face with "[enabled by default]" warnings is not that there are no options to turn these warnings off (we _want_ these warnings), but this also means there are no corresponding -Werror= options (and also no -Werror=enabled-by-default or -Werror=default-warnings). And pure -Werror turns all other warnings we want to see into errors too :(.
regards, Franz
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |