a warning to implement

[Joe Buck]

> Tim Hollebeek <tim@hollebeek.com> writes:
> 
> | > Please, note that I'm not saying that GCC should not have an option to
> | > trigger the proposed warning. I'm saying that that shouldn't be on by
> | > default in -Wall.
> | 
> | Then noone will have it on (because it is such a rare case they won't
> | realize they might need it).
> 
> That argument is flawed:  there are plenty of warning not included in
> -Wall and yet actually used by people.

If we add a new warning to -Wall, people will discover bugs in their code
quickly.  If we add a new warning but not to -Wall, 99% of gcc users will
be unaware of the new warning and never use it.