On Monday 19 September 2005 01:10, Joe Buck wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 06:54:26PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Generally speaking, we want -Wall to be safe to use. gcc has some > warnings that can't be silenced without making correct programs > worse (-Weffc++ comes to mind); these are not included in -Wall. > > In that sense, -Wall effectively means "all the warnings we recommend > that you use". Some people might want to argue with this, but that > is the practical effect. Fair enough. Still - thou - I would kindly request adding singness warning as default in gcc. From security perspective, that's required. I would even generate errors on those, if you ask me, but I know this isn't quite normal for the rest of world.
-- Vercetti
