a warning to implement

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

| > 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.

I'm skeptical: New warnings were added, but not in -Wall, and yet
people got aware of it.

-- Gaby