On 12 October 2017 at 19:10, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely> * Additional `-W...` flags
> are introduced in new gcc/g++ versions, which
>>
>> > check for new potential code smells, possibly related to later language
>> > standards. That's great (thanks!).
>>
>> And the most widely useful ones are added to -Wall so you don't need
>> to know about them and add them explicitly.
>
>
> "Most" != "All".
>
> IMVHO it is too strong to say "you don't need to know about [other ones]".

I didn't say that. I said you don't need to know about the -Wall ones,
because you get them anyway.

And I said it's not such a problem if you don't know about the others
ones until you read the release notes. Not that you don't need to
know, but that the severity of the problem is less, because they are
by definition the less commonly-needed warnings (otherwise they'd be
in -Wall or -Wextra).

> You might say you don't _typically_ need to know about them. Quite possibly
> so; but the feature request is for the use case of people who, like me, find
> some of the non-Wall non-Wextra warnings to be useful. These additional
> flags exist for a reason...

Yes, I'm not disputing that, just saying that it's not a critical
issue, because it only applies to some of the less commonly-needed
warnings.

I note that you didn't quote or respond to the part where I said
anybody could add the docs you want, but that nobody ever does it :-)

Reply via email to