a warning to implement

[Tim Hollebeek]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 01:51:45PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > 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.

Exactly.  The burden is on those who oppose the warning to demonstrate
that a significant number (at least 1%!!) would be inconvenienced.

This, of course, assumes that noone gets a warning that cannot be
avoided by rewriting their code.  But no such case has been posted,
and no credible case for the existence of such code has been made.

-Tim