Paul Eggert wrote: > Coreutils has several other places where gcc -W issues > bogus warnings (typically about signed vs unsigned comparisons)
Yes, "gcc -W" is practically unusable without -Wno-sign-compare. > 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." I agree that "the compiler should be your servant". The -Wmissing-field-initializers warning was put into gcc to help Linux kernel programming; it has many structs with function pointers, and an implicit NULL pointer there causes a crash, so it's really something a Linux hacker wants to catch. You can't say it's not typical programming style: the gnulib 'list' modules are written in the same style. "gcc -W" is a collection of useful and of anal warnings. It was a conscious decision of the gcc developers to put warnings that are always useful into "gcc -Wall" and the remaining ones into "-W". You can still use the warnings that bring most benefit one by one, for example "gcc -Wall -Wmissing-field-initializers". Bruno _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
