Joy with new GCC 3.3 warnings -- HTF to shut them up?

[Geoff Keating]

"David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> writes:

> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 11:17:26PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > > I think it was a mistake for gcc to make this change, in fact, one can
> > > argue that it is a regression (in that there doesn't appear to be a
> > > way to write a conforming C program that uses this standard means of
> > > getting a version identifier into the object file without producing a
> > > warning).
> > 
> > Any useful warning that is added to GCC is almost certainly to cause at
> > least one case of such a "regression", so if you decide that is reason
> > not to add it, then you essentially have a policy of adding no useful
> > new warnings.
> 
> eh???  How does adding "-Wwarn-for-foo" cause any regressions -- you use
> it when you're ready for it (or for new code).

Rodert's statement is true if you replace 'GCC' with '-Wall'.
Basically, if you say that adding a warning to -Wall is a regression
because some people use -Wall -Werror and so it might break their
build, you've created a policy of never changing -Wall.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>