Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I recently added the new -Wjump-misses-init warning option. It warns > when a goto or switch jumps into the scope of an initialized variable > without actually initializing the variable. I added the warning to > -Wall because it seems to me to fit the criteria of -Wall: a dubious > code practice which is easy to avoid.
> Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall? Having read through this thread, I think that putting this in -Wall is the right thing. I'm very sensitive to the backwards-compatibility issues, but I don't think that trying never to emit new errors with -Wall is a sensible kind of backwards compatibility. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
