On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote: >> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns >> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the >> > tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning, >> > but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess. >> >> Your absolutist view is just an opinion and reasonable people disagree >> on the value of the warning. It's already found bugs in real code. >> >> You could continue being upset, or somebody who understands the code >> could just fix the warnings and everybody can get on with their lives. > > Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough". I'll > note other have concerns. Here's one example:
Also "other people have concerns" doesn't refute that it's just an opinion, and not everybody shares that opinion. "THIS IS WRONG, YOU MUST FIX IT" is unproductive. Somebody could disable -Wimplicit-fallthrough for the Fortran front-end, or add the fallthrough comments, and stop wasting the time of everybody who reads the gcc@ list. If the code is 100% correct and there is no chance of accidentally omitted break statements in the Fortran front-end then just disable the warning, it's not meant for infallible programmers.
