Warning annoyances in list_read.c

Steve Kargl sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Mon Mar 27 13:50:00 GMT 2017

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here.  If someone turns
> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
> > tree that triggers that warning.  There is ZERO value to this warning,
> > but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess.
> Your absolutist view is just an opinion and reasonable people disagree
> on the value of the warning. It's already found bugs in real code.
> You could continue being upset, or somebody who understands the code
> could just fix the warnings and everybody can get on with their lives.

Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough".  I'll
note other have concerns.  Here's one example:


   Without Bernd's patch to set the default to 1 you will drown
   in false positives once you start using gcc-7 to build a whole
   distro. On my Gentoo test box anything but level 1 is simply
   unacceptable, because you will miss important other warnings
   in the -Wimplicit-fallthrough noise otherwise.

The code is valid C.  So, you'll fixing already valid code.

20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow

More information about the Gcc mailing list