On 12/16/19 2:45 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07 2019, Jeff Law wrote: >> [...]
> I'm afraid I that -Wmaybe-uninitialized is getting out of hand. I bet > that some users regularly get these warnings coming from c++ header > "libraries" (like they sometimes come out our vec.h which recently > "broke" bootstrap) which they sometimes even cannot change and they then > conclude that our -Wall is "unusable" and stop paying attention to all > warnings. -Wmaybe-uninitialized that trigger in std::optional (and clones) (PR80635 [1]) are particularly annoying, and there's no sane workaround the user can apply. You'll find quite a number of those just by googling for it: https://www.google.com/search?q=std+optional+"-Wmaybe-uninitialized"; We have a few of those in GDB, and because GDB uses -Wall + -Werror, GDB nowadays builds with -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized so that we see the warnings but the build continues without error. People still occasionally get confused and waste time with those warnings, though. Here, just this week, point 5: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00706.html FWIW, I've considered completely disabling -Wmaybe-uninitialized in GDB instead of downgrading it from -Werror to a warning with -Wno-error. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 -- Pedro Alves
