patch for Re: Inappropriate Warning Cannot Be Turned Off

[C. van Reeuwijk]

> 
> > > The first line of flags is obviously necessary, but I would really like
> > > to see a lot of the other flags moved under -Wall, or perhaps under a
> > > new flag -Wstrict.
> >
> > I strongly disagree.
> >
> > I much prefer individual control of warning flags.
> 
> I think by "moved under -Wall," he meant, "included under -Wall but also left
> as individual flags, " the same way all of the other -Wall flags are now.
> (If I'm wrong, speak up.)

Yes, that was of course what I meant. Sorry for the imprecise wording.

> More stuff under -Wall or -Wall-no-dammit-i-really-mean-ALL would sit well
> with me.

Although your suggestion is cute, i still suggest -Wstrict for this :-)

As far as I know -Wall does not switch on all warnings because the
remaining flags were considered too obscure/experimental/unclear to let
loose on the general public. As far as I know the set has not changed
in quite some years, so perhaps a re-evaluation of that descision is
in order.

> > I guess -Wall is OK, provided only that the default settings provided by -Wall
> > can then be modified by additional -W- and -Wno- arguments.
> 
> That's the way it's always been; I don't think anybody would want it
> differently.

I agree, one of the nice things of the system is that you can tune the
warnings to your individual taste, and removing that feature is IMHO a
bad idea.

-- 
Kees van Reeuwijk, Delft University of Technology
http://www.pds.twi.tudelft.nl/~reeuwijk