On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:17:00AM +0100, Thomas König wrote:
>
>
> > Am 23.01.2019 um 01:53 schrieb Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com>:
>
> > I often wish GCC supported it -- not in the hopes of finding every
> > conceivable bug or transgression against known coding styles but
> > as a tool to discover warnings that have to be explicitly enabled
> > either by using their own options or by specifying a higher level
> > than the default.
>
> So, maybe an option to list every warning would be better?
>
> I am sure the number of people doing
>
> gcc `gcc —list-warnings=all`
>
> and complaining about the result be small 😉
We have that, gcc -Q --help=warning
Of course, for warnings which do require arguments (numerical, or
enumeration/string), one still needs to pick up his choices of those
arguments; no idea what -Weverything would do here, while some warnings
have different levels where a higher (or lower) level is a superset of
another level, what numbers would you pick for e.g. warnings where the
argument is bytes?
And, I agree -Weverything is a terrible idea.
Jakub
