On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:17 AM, H.J. Lu<hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Ian Lance Taylor<i...@google.com> wrote: >> Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> writes: >> >>> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 07:12:50AM CEST: >>>> Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall? >>> >>> Is the missing of an initialization detected elsewhere, or can it be >>> detected elsewhere, maybe only in cases where it actually leads to >>> undefined behavior (as defined by C)? >> >> Yes, in many cases gcc will warn about using an uninitialized variable >> via -Wuninitialized. >> > > I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in > gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C, > -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings.
The same is true of any new -Wall warning that applies to existing code, but we must not let that stop us improving -Wall, even when existing code generates some (acceptable) level of false positives. > It will make gcc 4.5.0 > unusable to those people. Can you justify that claim? How does getting warnings about questionable code constructs render a compiler "unusable"? -- James
