This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul_Koning at Dell dot com
- Cc: law at redhat dot com, jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com, andi at firstfloor dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:53:56 +0100
- Subject: Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?
- References: <87ehb8rljz dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <51DBFC32 dot 8050401 at redhat dot com> <8761wiiihc dot fsf at tassilo dot jf dot intel dot com> <CAAiZkiBcJW0OH8dtkhUCvhrkHiKt4S3xAgurEdqTJskU3mdjHA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130710161111 dot GY6123 at two dot firstfloor dot org> <CAH6eHdTA6oCHmKU_G6C6idtjhj-5SjFXo8adbE9vfDB2rVheXA at mail dot gmail dot com> <51DD8F79 dot 5080200 at redhat dot com> <C75A84166056C94F84D238A44AF9F6AD0344C458 at AUSX10MPC102 dot AMER dot DELL dot COM>
On 07/10/2013 05:48 PM, Paul_Koning@Dell.com wrote:
> It seems to me there are two cases. One is releases, where you want to maximize the odds that an install will work. For that you clearly don't want -Werror, and you might want to trim back the warnings. The other is the development phase, where you want to weed out questionable code. So for development builds you want lots of warnings, and possible -Werror as well to increase the odds that flagged code will be seen and fixed.
There's a third case: release environments where the developers track
GCC development.
Andrew.