On 20/12/06, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 17 December 2006 12:56, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> For me, the
> best would be to NOT enable the warning for Wextra, so I don't need to
> come up with a name for this warning flag. Otherwise, we would have to
> document that the warning is enabled by both pedantic and Wextra, so a
> user won't be surprised when the warning does not go away by using the
> Wno-* form just because pedantic is enabled.
Well, the intent was clearly to enable the warning for Wall (later Wextra) in
addition to pedantic, so I would suggest that in the absence of a positive
reason to revert it, you should extend the second clause to cover Wextra as
well.
Since you are the only one who answered to this, I will do exactly
that. Although, my intent is to name the warning, something like
Wordered-pointer-comparison, and enabled by Wextra and pedantic but it
can be disabled with Wno-ordered-pointer-comparison.
Heh. Or you could always make it a divide-by-zero error instead :)
Oh, sorry. I didn't get this. If you would be so kind to elaborate...
Thanks for replying,
Manuel
