Am Mittwoch, dem 20.05.2026 um 23:25 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener: > > > Am 20.05.2026 um 23:11 schrieb Martin Uecker via Gcc <[email protected]>: > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 20.05.2026 um 19:50 +0200 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > > > > I'd tend to prefer moving to -Wextra. Though I suspect they'll bitrot > > > > over time in there :( I've seen them find real issues, but I think it's > > > > reasonably clear that they're causing more pain than they're solving. > > > > > > FWIW that's also my experience. > > > > I sometimes find them useful (in C, C++ might be affected differently). > > > > I also observe that people invent entirely new languages which are much > > stricter and which fail hard for things which would be considered > > false positives, so keeping them at least in -Wextra would seem > > appropriate to me. > > It seems to be a reasonable, if intermediate step.
Some alternative could be to have new warning categories related to memory-safety issues where the expectation is that the warnings are aggressive and even potential safety issues see a warning. I could imagine quite a lot of new warnings which would also make sense there (e.g. warnings about all unsafe casts, potentially unsafe pointer arhithmetic such as clang's -Wunsafe-buffer-usage etc.). I know that there is a lot of interest among some users and many of those warnings would be fairly easy to add. It still would be nice to reduce true false positive though. Martin > > Richard > > > > > Martin
