Re: Warning C vs C++
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In that sense, -Wall effectively means "all the warnings we recommend > that you use". Some people might want to argue with this, but that > is the practical effect. A -Weverything that turned on all boolean warnings would be nice. It would be useless alone, but nice followed by a lot of -Wno-somesillywarning -Wno-anothersillywarning arguments. The idea was that you would be sure to get all the (boolean) warnings that are relevant for your project, and can give an explicit reason for each warning you don't want. It would be particularly useful when upgrading GCC, in order to be sure you get the benefit of any new boolean warnings added. The "boolean" qualifier is just to make the semantics of the option easy to define. No, I'm not working on a patch.
Re: Warning C vs C++
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Per Abrahamsen wrote: > >> The idea was that you would be sure to get all the (boolean) warnings >> that are relevant for your project, and can give an explicit reason >> for each warning you don't want. >> It would be particularly useful when upgrading GCC, in order to be >> sure you get the benefit of any new boolean warnings added. > > Of course any generally useful new boolean warnings would be > included in -Wall. Yeah, but I want the specifically useful warnings as well :-) >From my Makefile: WARNING = -W -Wall -Wno-sign-compare \ -Wconversion -Woverloaded-virtual \ -Wsign-promo -Wundef -Wpointer-arith -Wwrite-strings # -Wold-style-cast: triggered by header files for 2.95/woody # -Wmissing-noreturn: triggered by some virtual functions. # -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes: Not C++ flags. At some point I went through the manual and added all the warning flags I could find, then commented out those that did not apply to my coding style or environment. Apparently there were six additional flags that either didn't trigger any warnings on my code, or where I found a rewrite made the code clearer.
Re: GCC mailing list archive search omits results after May 2005
Olly Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But note that Gmane (http://gmane.org) is run entirely on Free Software, > and doesn't provide any non-Free Software downloads so you could > presumably add a search box for that without political worries. (This > may also be true for some of the other mail archives, I'm just much more > familiar with how Gmane is run because I built the current search > facility for it). Actually, I wonder if it really makes sense for the GCC project to spend part of their limited resources on maintaining their own mail archives, when specialized free as in FSF services like gmane exist?
Re: GCC mailing list archive search omits results after May 2005
Ranjit Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes it does. If nothing else, the archives are used to > provide canonical URLs for referring to messages. gmane provides that too.
