GCC warnings for unused global variables

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:

| On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 07:05:08AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| > > And warning on perfectly legal, innocuous constructs makes
| > > absolutely no sense to me.
| > 
| > Well all warnings apply to legal constructs, or they would be errors!
| 
| > As to innocuous, the reason why something is NOT an error is that you
| > can't tell whether it is innocous or not, so warnings almost always
| > generate some false positives (or they would not be warnings!)
| 
| Correct, but in this case, we've broken a 20-year-old convention.
| "Broken", that is, because we've carefully designed -Wall so that
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
| we can expect that high-quality software development processes can
| produce their code with -Wall -Werror.

I disagree with that statement, because right now we don't have
clearly defined and accepted semantics for "-Wall", which partly
explains why we keep discussing what -Wall should do or not do.

-- Gaby