On 26 Jan 2007 10:25:30 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23/01/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > * A base class is not initialized in a de
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23/01/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > * A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy constructor.
| > >
| > > Proposed: move this warning to -Wu
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| Thanks. I understand that you are busy with the 4.0.4 release, so
| don't need to hurry up!
I was busy with daytime job.
-- Gaby
On 25 Jan 2007 11:17:41 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| A summary of what has been proposed so far to clean up Wextra follows.
| Please, your feedback is appreciated. And reviewing patches even more
| ;-)
Thanks for this dig
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| A summary of what has been proposed so far to clean up Wextra follows.
| Please, your feedback is appreciated. And reviewing patches even more
| ;-)
Thanks for this digest; I'd give your feedback tonight.
-- Gaby
On 23/01/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> * A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy constructor.
>
> Proposed: move this warning to -Wuninitialized seems the appropriate
> solution. However, I am afraid
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> * A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy constructor.
>
> Proposed: move this warning to -Wuninitialized seems the appropriate
> solution. However, I am afraid that this warning will turn out to be
> too noisy
A summary of what has been proposed so far to clean up Wextra follows.
Please, your feedback is appreciated. And reviewing patches even more
;-)
* Subscripting an array which has been declared register.
* Taking the address of a variable which has been declared register.
Proposed: new option -W
On 11 Jan 2007 17:29:10 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > * A function can return either with or without a value.
> >
> > I give up.
>
> :-) Non
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These issues are tricky because on the one hand we don't want too many
> > different options, and on the other hand we want to give people the
> > control they are
On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
> is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
> warnings by itself (other
On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
* Taking the address of a variable which has been declared register.
Hmmm. In the C frontend these are pedwarns. But the C++ frontend
doesn't have pedwarns. And maybe C++ doesn't require these warnings
anyhow, I don't know.
Just FYI...
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
> is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
> warnings by itself (other super-options are Wall and Wunused).
Thanks again for tackling this.
These
The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
warnings by itself (other super-options are Wall and Wunused).
This is a summary of the current status of Wextra for mainline to the
best of my knowledge. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
