On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM, James Dennett<james.denn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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. The code is perfectly valid C. This warning provides no additional useful information which -Wuninitialized doesn't provide. >> 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"? > If you have thousands of packages, investigate many false positive errors may not be feasible on top of many other real issues in gcc and packages. -- H.J.
