On 26 Jan 2007 10:25:30 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23/01/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +0000, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > * A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy constructor.
| > >
| > > Proposed: move this warning to -Wuninitialized seems the appropriate
| > > solution. However, I am afraid that this warning will turn out to be
| > > too noisy and hard to avoid to be in Wuninitialized (see PR 11159).
| > > Perhaps a new option -Wuninitialized-base-class enabled by -Wextra
| > > would be better if that PR cannot be easily fixed.
| >
| > Yuck.  Until PR 11159 is fixed, we can't move that warning into anything
| > that is enabled by -Wall.
|
| Agreed. And what about the name, -Wuninitialized-base-class? Is it fitting?

Or fix PR 11159.

That would be the perfect solution in a perfect world. However, it was
reported in 2003-06-11. It doesn't seem easy stuff. We would need a
brave developer to tackle it. Do you know such person?

On the other hand, having its own option provides a work-around to
disable the warning, while still being able to use -Wextra. (or use
the new pragma diagnostics machinery to disable it just for some
files). If that bug is ever fixed, we can move the warning to
-Wuninitializated. Or we can enable it when using -Wuninitializated.

Don't you agree?

Reply via email to