Warning annoyances in list_read.c

Markus Trippelsdorf markus@trippelsdorf.de
Mon Mar 27 15:22:00 GMT 2017

On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> 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:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00300.html
>    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 quotation doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion,
which is the general usefulness of the warning.
It only talks about one of the (admittedly over-engineered) six
different levels of the warning.


More information about the Gcc mailing list