Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?

[Andreas Arnez]

Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

> On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>> With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
>> maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall.  Projects which have been using
>> "-Wall -Werror" successfully for many years are now forced to
>> investigate non-existing bugs in their code.
>
> But maybe-uninitialized is very useful, and it's not really inappropriate
> for -Wall.

The warning would be extremely useful, if false positives didn't obscure
real problems.  In its current state I consider its usefulness limited.

The reason I consider the warning (currently) inappropriate for -Wall is
that it does not seem to behave as reliably and predictably as the other
-Wall options.  The description of -Wall says:

"This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users
consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to prevent
the warning) [...]"

Note the "easy to avoid".  If everybody agrees that -Wall should include
maybe-uninitialized, then I suggest to change the wording here.

> I would question the appropriateness of using -Wall -Werror in
> production code.

What matters is whether *some* stages of production code development use
this combination of options.  It could certainly be argued whether it
should also be a project's "configure" default, like currently the case
for gdb.