http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #26) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #25) > > I don't see any reason for -Wuninitialized to not enable > > -Wmaybe-uninitialized. > > I can see 3 kinds of use: > > 1. Users who are interested in neither: they just don't use these options > (if they want to use -Wall, they need the -Wno- version). -Wall -Wno-uninitialized suppresses both. > 2. Users interested in -Wuninitialized but not in -Wmaybe-uninitialized (to > avoid potential many false positives). Because -Wuninitialized enables > -Wmaybe-uninitialized, they need 2 options: -Wuninitialized > -Wno-maybe-uninitialized. If -Wuninitialized did not enable > -Wmaybe-uninitialized, only one option would be needed: -Wuninitialized. This argument goes both ways: if you are interested in both warnings, you would need both options. > 3. Users interested in both. I think that -Wmaybe-uninitialized should > enable -Wuninitialized because it makes no sense to have > -Wmaybe-uninitialized but not -Wuninitialized. Indeed, if some variable is > uninitialized, then it may be uninitialized. So, only one option should be > needed in this case: -Wmaybe-uninitialized. Aha! This is a really good point on which I can agree. However, it will seriously break backwards compatibility for people that use either -Wuninitialized or -Wno-uninitialized explicitly. I am not sure if the pain is worth the beauty. I don't think it is worth to discuss this in Bugzilla (specially not on this PR). If you are convinced that this is the right thing to do, you could propose a patch to gcc-patches and see how people receive it.
