On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:53:25PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/27/2016 03:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:48:07PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>On 09/27/2016 02:01 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>On 09/27/2016 01:51 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>>>>But the C/C++ keywords are all English, too; lint tools only accept
> >>>>>English,
> >>>>>and so it wouldn't seem unreasonable to only accept English keywords in
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>comments. And in any case, I don't see how a compiler can be expected to
> >>>>>be able to parse non-English languages.
> >>>>
> >>>>It isn't. But it can also be reasonably by expected not to warn about
> >>>>things
> >>>>that are valid according to the language specification and are frequently
> >>>>used.
> >>>
> >>>Ok, but note that the warning is in -Wextra, not enabled by default/-Wall.
> >>
> >>I think it's problematic enough that it needs to be removed from -Wextra as
> >>well. The latest ia64 backend patch shows that clearly IMO.
> >
> >Just compare that to the number of real bugs the warning found in gcc
> >codebase. It is really worth it for -Wextra.
>
> What's the ratio of comments "fixed" to actual bugs found? IMO this is not
> something we should inflict on users unasked.
We've inflicted on users many other coding style warnings that have a
reasonably high chance to reveal real bugs, e.g. -Wmisleading-indentation which
is
even enabled in -Wall, not just -Wextra. In reality, -Wextra isn't used
that often, and the people that use it will most likely benefit from the
warning IMNSHO.
Jakub
