Warning annoyances in list_read.c

Jerry DeLisle jvdelisle@charter.net
Mon Mar 27 01:45:00 GMT 2017

On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough"
> IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever
> added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to compiler options.  It should
> be removed (especially if is has been added to -Wall).
> You can also probably add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough to 
> libgfortran/configure.ac at 
> # Add -Wall -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring if we are using GCC.
> if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then
>   AM_FCFLAGS="-I . -Wall -Werror -fimplicit-none -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring"

Problem I have is I don't know who to complain to. I think there is a bit of a
glass wall going on here anyway, so what would be the point of complaining if
the retrievers of the message all have the ON-OFF switch in the OFF position.
(After all, I do not have a PHD, I am not a computer science graduate, why
bother looking down ones nose at a low life such as myself, OMG its an engineer,
what the hell does he know.)

Maybe these warnings are being turned on as a matter of policy, but truth is,
when I build 50 times a day, the warnings flying by are masking the errors or
other warnings that may be important. For example, I inadvertently passed a ptr
to a function rather than the *ptr.

The warning that ensued flew by mixed in with all the other crap warnings and I
did not see it. That cost me wasted cycle time (remember, I am not an expert and
should not be expected to see such things. Hell, for that matter I should not
even be doing any of this work. :)

Cheers everybody, its been dark and gray all day.


More information about the Gcc mailing list