On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 20:44 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:32:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 02:13:05AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > > | Have -Wuninitialized be a very simple detector, which is either in the > > > front-ends > > > | or in the middle-end so it could be shared (just like -Wunused). > > > | Have -Wuninitialized=2, be the current -Wuninitialized. > > > > > > That is backward. Have -Wuninitialized means whatever it means today. > > > > Agreed. We don't want it to change much; people who use -Wall -Werror > > will be particularly pissed off if gcc produces new, but bogus, warnings > > for uninitialized variables (please feel free to produce new, but *valid*, > > warnings). > > People who use -Wall -Werror are _already_ pissed off about > -Wuninitialized. It virtually guarantees that your build will fail on > a new release of GCC. Very true, but I don't think that's an execute to generate even more false positives for them! :-)
Those groups of users also get upset anytime we add something -Wall, but that's another discussion unto itself! jeff
