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: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:36:38 -0500
- 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> <87siznrg4y dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <51DC872C dot 7030303 at redhat dot com> <87vc4in0x6 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <CAAkRFZ+g_n=ZqNM26a=pdZ33+qh45+jEZ=4+bDFc1VM5mU96-w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAiZkiCAXORrehF591Lq4dL2rONWez3MWMCTDMTQ3pUbkagyxQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAkRFZLMw=h0_pisaHRz=3YYNmYxAHAmB9rK-PDTeVBQ_QoLow at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>> What about introducing a new blanket warning kind that excludes
>>> anything with false positives? something like -WALL ?
>>
>> I am doubtful "more ropes" is the answer.
>>
>
> Reason?
It adds one too-many options to existing minefield without
solving the underlying fundamental problem.
-- Gaby