On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:09 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Can the -Winf option really happen? It should be easy to make that
> turn on every -W option without having the manually list them and keep
> it up to date. Like, it should be easy, I would hope, to make that be
> automatic. Even if just used as
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
>> On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wake
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
>>> No you don'
On 12/04/2012 16:35, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
>> it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
>> & and | .
>
> There are probably some programmers who compl
On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name
On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>>> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
>> No you don't. You said:
>>
> People easily associates some o
On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
means something quite specific
On 4/13/2012 2:03 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
I was asked "wassup wit
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
> discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
> no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
I was asked "wassup with Robert?". All I can say s that
it is a de
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the
>> observation.
>>
>>> and
>>> nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
>
>
> I think you don't know what
On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the observation.
and
nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
I think you don't know what incompleteness is about, yes, it is
nonsense, because no one can make any
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>>> There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
>>> world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
>>> monotonically increasing version numbers, i
On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
monotonically increasing version numbers, instead of just one that means "this
is done now".
As I observed
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> It would even allow -Winf for the
>>> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
>>> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
>>> -Wover9000.
>>
>> Do we ha
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
>
> No you don't. You said:
>
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> There is
>> little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
>
> Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
> control used to have lots of files lying arou
On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> It would even allow -Winf for the
>> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
>> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
>> -Wover9000.
>
> Do we have bugzilla entry for that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
No you don't. You said:
>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>>> creates a
On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> There is
> little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
control used to have lots of files lying around called "foo.final.c",
"foo.final.reallyfinal.c", "foo.fi
Robert Dewar escreveu:
> On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
>> it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
>> & and | .
>
> There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the o
On 04/12/2012 04:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>>> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
>>> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
>>
>>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
>>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they a
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
>> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
>
>
> No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimizatio
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
>> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
>
> It woul
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gab
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimization options.
"Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
It would even allow -Winf for the
sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-act
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
& and | .
There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator
precedence rules in C. Ther
On 4/12/2012 11:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
What exactly do you put in -Wn to make it give *more* warning?
I can think of a reduced number of switch that would give you
more warning on a specific program without them bein
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Certainly, everything that adds to clarity (and has no runtime costs!)
is desirable. But adding parentheses may not add to clarity if doing
so also obfuscates the code. There is a cost to the reader due to a
blizzard of syntactically redundant parenth
On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
>>> wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> People easily associates some ord
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> What is nonsensical there?
>>
>>> But they *are* ordinal.
>>
>>
>> Now? What is the order?
>
>
> less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
> ordered than that!
What exactly do you
On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What is nonsensical there?
But they *are* ordinal.
Now? What is the order?
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
It works just fine for -O,
Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily
generate
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater the better
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>>> creates another set of co
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
>> -W1: default
>> -W2: equivalent to
On 04/12/2012 03:36 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
>>
>> Using tw
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
> -W1: default
> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wal
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
>>>
>>>
>>> I like this suggestion a lot.
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Me too!
I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long
hard-to-type not-n
On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Sorry for the confusion: I intended to write
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Using two different defin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the b
On 04/12/2012 02:03 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
>> don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
>> they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
>
> Yes, of course I 1
On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Yes, of course I 100% agree with that. But then by your definition
code that
On 4/12/12 6:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
How about a warning level?
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Indeed.
On 04/12/2012 10:46 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
2012/4/12 Robert Dewar :
> On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
>>
>> in the code I
On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
means somethin
On 4/12/2012 5:55 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
... and it's quite possible that such bugs resulting from adding
parentheses means that the programmer "fixing" the code didn't
actually know the right precedence!
or that the layout (which is what in practice we should rely on
to make things clear with
Robert Dewar writes:
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
>> in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is really well kn
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is rea
2012/4/11 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would not want it on by default since
O
This one is an interesting case, since there are strong arguments on
both sides.
I enabled the C++ warning about the precedence of&& and || (it's been
in C for many years). It found real bugs in real code, bugs that had
existed for years.
I think for ordinary programmers, the fact that AND
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would no
On 04/11/2012 05:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would not want it
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>> warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
>> write too many
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
> >> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warnin
On 2012-04-08 18:56:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Anyway, GCC prints the option that controls a warning as part of the
> diagnostic, so it's trivial to find which options control the
> diagnostics that are annoying you.
And it's fine that using the -Wno-... form doesn't make the
compilation f
On 2012-04-10 14:48:05 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>> On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel
On 2012-04-05 16:44:28 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Personally, as a matter of *style*, I eliminate such cases either by
> >initializing the variable or restructuring the function. But this is very
> >much a question of style, not of correctness.
>
> In
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
> warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
> write too many parentheses in ((a&&b)||(c&&d)
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> > To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
>> >
>> > bike-sheddin',
>> > -miles
>>
>> at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
>
> To use a variant of your own counterargument
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> > To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
>> >
>> > bike-sheddin',
>> > -miles
>>
>> at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
>
> To use a variant of your own counterargument
Andrew Haley writes:
> The argument is that we should enable the warnings by default because
> it makes gcc more competitive. But that only makes gcc more
> competitive if enabling these kinds of warnings by default is an
> advantage. However, we haven't established that -Wall by default is
> ad
On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Really? Such as what?
Such
On 04/05/2012 03:21 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess,
> but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what it's to
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
> >
> > bike-sheddin',
> > -miles
>
> at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against -Wdefault: "common"
also has a special commonly (ahem :) u
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> 2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou :
>>> Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
>>> reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
>>
>> Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
>> supposed
2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou :
>> Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
>> reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
>
> Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
> supposed to mean "warning" already, e.g. it's -Wall and not -Wall-wa
> Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
> reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean "warning" already, e.g. it's -Wall and not -Wall-warnings.
--
Eric Botcazou
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually...
AS> It doesn't have to be short: -Wdefault-warnings.
I haven't looked at all of the replies since I posted, and I *had*
forgotten about -Wextra (I can't even remember how many years it has
been since I last read that secti
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
>>> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
>>> wouldn't have anyt
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
>> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
>> wouldn't have anything to do with standards conforma
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
> wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
I agree.
I have been resisting to go the
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
-Wdefault
might be better
On 9 April 2012 18:29, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
>> is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
>> introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
>> Hopefully, it is it is going to be the
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default, mos
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We are in agreement. I was just explaining to Gerald that his proposal
would have been my first choice, but I am compromising by moving to
your suggestion. My complaint is the introduction of a new switch
just to accomodate warnings that should not
> That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
> is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
> introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
> Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default, most people would not have
> to learn y
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cas
On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
understood by everyon
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
>> cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
>> understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or would have
@gcc.gnu.org; Miles Bader; Gabriel Dos
Reis; Ian Lance Taylor; Andrew Haley
Subject: Re: RFC: -Wall by default
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
> cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
> unde
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
> cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
> understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or would have been
> fixed long ago)?
Perhaps we should move this class of
On 4/8/2012 4:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
no, -Wstandard wasn't in my original proposal. It is the name suggested
by Miles for the list I gave Arnaud upon request.
I know that, I can read -:)
I am just saying I think this issue still needs discussion (and you
were complaining about contin
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
defa
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> I think I agree with this. I suspect the only difference might be that
>> I do not believe the fix is necessarily to turn them off.
>
>
> Well there are three possibilities
>
> a) fix the false
On 4/8/2012 4:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
with very li
On 4/8/2012 4:25 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so havi
On 4/8/2012 4:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I think I agree with this. I suspect the only difference might be that
I do not believe the fix is necessarily to turn them off.
Well there are three possibilities
a) fix the false positives, at the possible expense of introducing
new false negati
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
>> default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
>> with very little chance of false positives would av
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
>> is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
>> and so having them in bugzilla is good.
>
>
> Do
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
No, because those are already in bugzilla, and there's a whole wiki
page about improving that particular warning.
Yes, I know, and that page is to me good justification for NOT including
this warning in the set that is on by default.
But I'd be just
On 8 April 2012 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
>> is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
>> and so having them in bugzilla is good.
>
>
> Do you reall
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so having them in bugzilla is good.
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
ca
On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I
On 8 April 2012 19:51, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The people who don't want -Wall (or
>> -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
>> -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
>
>
> I see no evidence that supports that guess. O
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The people who don't want -Wall (or
>> -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
>> -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
>
>
> I see no evidence that supports tha
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
