arn...@skeeve.com writes:
>> At this point I wouldn't worry about the older clang and gcc versions
>> that complain about {0} as an initializer. We can either let them die
>> off noisily, or use the appropriate -Wno-whatever option when using them
>> to compile.
>
> I've decided to just not worry about it. It's impossible to compile
> without warnings on every single C compiler in the world.Indeed, and further, I believe that changing code to silence warnings from any non-modern or preferred compilers is counter-productive. Even further, I also believe that if we run into a situation where modern gcc (or clang?) produces a warning we don't agree with, we should try to get that fixed in the compiler and not make any code change. This approach unfortunately implies that we can't add -Werror to the default flags, something I earlier thought was a nice goal, but have reconsidered: it is better to have warnings for things we believe the compiler shouldn't warn about, than to modify code to silence the compiler, even if it is a modern gcc. In an ideal world, compilers shouldn't warn about things we believe it shouldn't warn about, but we'll never reach it so we shouldn't use -Werror. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
