> What we're in disagreement about is whether or not that class of > warnings should be triggered by -Wuninitialized. I STRONGLY believe > that -Wuninitialized should remain as-is in its documented behavior > and that we should have a distinct switch to get the new behavior.
Fine, but which of the two possible new behaviors did you mean? Is it late detection (option 3) or early+late (option 4) from your summary? I vote option 3 over option 4, regardless of the default. If we leave -Wuninitialized unchanged, I think the new behavior should be triggered by -Wuninitialized=2 rather than a new flag name. > At this point I'm so bloody frustrated by this discussion that I'm > about ready to throw the trivial changes over the wall and let someone > else deal with the problem. > Jeff You asked for opinions on the default for -Wuninitialized just yesterday. <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00040.html> I brought up reasons for wanting the consistent warning set, not to justify having the switch (which I see we agree on), but to justify maiking my view the default for -Wuninitialized. Clearly we disagree, that's life. If you were only interested in concurring opinions, you should have said that and I could have saved myself some typing. :-/ --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
