> This points to other ideas: > 1) how about adding a helper switch to show what is included in Wall? > such as -Wall-print
Doesn't gcc -Q -Wall --help=warnings give you this? Otherwise, I think it is a bug. > 2) how about making -Wall configurable -- a default config file is > looked at by the compiler, but user can change the config or use a > different config they like. Isn't this exactly like using -Wno-error=* or -Wno-* ? It is a small step to encode those in some file and pass the content of the file to gcc as extra command-line options. To be honest, I agree with Gabriel here. And I would go a step forward, I would say that we are too timid with the warnings we enable by default or by -Wall. We should warn more agressively, and let users disable the warnings that they don't care about or are too buggy for their taste. Because, at the end, it is a matter of taste. If -Wmaybe-uninitialized saved your neck you will wonder why it is not on by default. If it only shows false positives for your code, you will wonder why it exists at all. -Wmaybe-uninitialized is able to catch real bugs, and the false positives have easy work-arounds. It has some bugs, yes, but one can always work-around them. Despite this very long thread, we don't actually get that many complaints about it (we do get a lot of complaints about false negatives, in particular PR18501). Cheers, Manuel.
