In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: >On Saturday 17 September 2005 17:45, you wrote: >> That's a real misunderstanding. There are many warnings that are very >> specialized, and if -Wall really turned on all warnings, it would be >> essentially useless. The idea behind -Wall is that it represents a >> comprehensive set of warnings that most/many programmers can live >> with. To turn on all warnings would be the usability faux pas. >Ok, sure. This option is also used by many developers to see all possible >problems in their code. And btw, signed/unsigned isn't a minor problem. >Majority of code giving such warning is exploitable (in the black-hackish >terms). >I am developer myself, but just using gcc, hence my user's opinion.
Typical black-hat attitude. Band-aid problems instead of writing correct code. Guessing at compiler's behavior instead of reading the specs and writing robust portable code. That's the big reason there are lots of security holes all over the place. People keep guessing and learning by trial and error.
