On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Gerald Pfeifer<ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will make gcc 4.5.0 unusable
>> to those people.
>
> A warning is a warning is a warning and hardly should make GCC unusable.
>
> I bet that the breakage (not warnings) of third party code that libstdc++
> has been causing with the two latest release series is causing quite a lot
> more headache...
I agree. However, many C programmers view this C++ rule as "esoteric".
In C++, that rule is just the right thing to do because
(1) objects are suppposed to be properly initialized.
(2) destructors have run properly
(3) frankly, jumping over initialization is a budious practice.
I propose this:
(1) if std=c99 or -std=gnu99, include the warning in -Wall
(2) otherwise, include it in -Wextra
Of course, it will always be part of -Wc++-compat.
What do people think of that?
-- Gaby
