On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "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. > Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, one doesn't need to worry about the ones covered by `-Wall` (or `-Wextra` for that matter). > > You might say you don't _typically_ need to know about [the other > ones]... > > 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 agree this isn't a critical issue. This is a feature request; if it was a critical issue I would have tried hard to pose it as a bug report ;-) IMVHO, even though it isn't a critical issue, it makes sense as a proposed feature. > 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 :-) > Yes, sorry. It is a fair point. That said, fixing the documentation is a separate issue than the proposed new `-Wno-unknown-warnings` flag. In fact, having such a flag would make fixing the documentation less of an issue. I also _suspect_ adding this new flag would also be *much* less work - intuitively it should be a very localized change to the code. But I have no familiarity with the g++/gcc internals, so I could be wildly wrong assuming that.
