On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:08 PM Sam James via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> writes: > > > Joseph Myers <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> The point is that if using -Wextra, you should expect some warnings > >> that are "hard to avoid ... no simple way to modify the code to > >> suppress the warning" (whereas such warnings are outside the > >> documented scope of -Wall). > > > > Yes, I agree. > > > > I'm just saying that I think that, beyond just moving into -Wextra, the > > wording needs to be made less certain ("there is" -> "there may be" or > > so). > > So, something like: > 1) move to -Wextra; > 2) change phrasing; > Part of this should be to suggest -fdiagnostics-show-context=N. > 3) add diagnostic group -Wmiddle-end (name pending); > This seems too broad a category; let's focus on the most common problems, namely the ones supported by -fdiagnostics-show-context=N. Maybe -Wrange-flow or something like that? I also notice that pass_warn_access (-Wstringop-overflow) runs multiple times in passes.def; maybe the early run could stay in -Wall? Maybe even adjust all of the offending warnings to run before jump threading in -Wall and also optionally later? 4) drop from -Wextra now you can conveniently use them via the group. > > then? >
