Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> To turn off this warning one needs to pass -Wno-missing-field-initializers. > > OK, but I'm afraid the ship has already sailed with gcc -W on > Coreutils. Coreutils has several other places where gcc -W issues > bogus warnings (typically about signed vs unsigned comparisons), and > we're not inclined to change those either. People who want to use gcc > -W have to figure out how to ignore these bogus warnings, and adding a > few more bogus warnings to the list shouldn't hurt all that much. > > I think gcc -W ought to get fixed to match typical programming style, > not the reverse. Until this gets done we might as well not worry > _too_ much about what gcc -W says. "The compiler should be your > servant, not your master."
Thanks for the feedback, Bruno, but I agree wrt -W. At least in the coreutils, there are just too many places where -W produces false-positive and hard/messy-to-remove warnings. I've tried, periodically, to enable that option, but the cost in readability/maintainability (e.g., due to added casts) has always been prohibitively high. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
