https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> Whether or not to fix as well as whether or not to warn at -O0 are a topic
> of debate. I'm not sure I'm up for re-opening that can of worms right now.
I think we can both work on reducing false positives and move it out of -Wall,
it isn't exclusive.
> I strongly believe -Wmaybe-uninitialized should continue to be enabled by
> -Wall. They tend to either point out obscure ways objects are
> uninitialized or they point out missed optimizations. Both are critical in
> my mind.
-Wall
This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users
consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to
prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros.
I don't see how you can ever satisfy the "easy to avoid" part. In my experience
with several code bases, having this warning in -Wall (as opposed to -Wextra)
does more harm than good, with people doing random bad code changes to try and
get the compiler to shut up.
I still believe this warning is a very useful static analysis tool (I
contributed to make it appear more often in the past), but by definition it
will never avoid false positives.
