On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 01:01:09PM -0400, Patrick Palka wrote: >> I'm sad that this discussion died so soon without Antonio's points >> being adequately addressed. > > But how do you want to address that? His point is that it does not belong > into -Wall, while there seems to be a wide agreement that it should be part > of -Wall, it found lots of real bugs in wide range of code, and for projects > that just want to use weirdo formatting styles they always have option to > opt-out, using -Wno-misleading-indentation. > > Jakub
Yeah, I guess you're right. There is nothing really left to address since the remaining points of contention are mostly subjective, like as to whether or not the warnings emitted by -Wmisleading-indentation are sufficiently easy to work around as required by the criteria of -Wall. (In some cases it may require re-indenting huge blocks of code, for example, but that's still mechanically easy I guess.) Though there are some inconsistencies regarding the inclusiveness of -Wall seeing as neither -Woverlength-strings nor -Wempty-body are enabled by -Wall even though they seemingly satisfy the criteria of -Wall more readily than -Wmisleading-indentation does.
