On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote: > There are two fundamental problems: > 1) uninit warning has false positives. > 2) people disagree what is the expected behavior of -Wall. > > 1) can only be solved by improving the analysis.
I think we should focus on this. While we can't attain perfection here, there is room for improvement for the cases that actually matter. > The new option is a > reasonable way to solve 2), unless you think the only way to solve it > is to change the behavior of -Wall, or ask concerned user to > explicitly use -Wno-error=... or white list the warning options they > care. I do consider that -Wall should be 'reasonably' free of annoying false positives, and that should be fixed by improving the detection analysis, of by removing the switch from -Wall. This is the recipe we've applied so far, and it usually works. Of course, a workaround, while waiting for the improvement, is to list the diagnostics that are at fault in -Wno-error=. In general, I think we are too eager to add new switches, but we have no framework in place to test the coherence of the various switches we keep adding. A key attractive aspect of -Wall is that one does not need to know the gazillion switches that are activated. One can make a case that everyone should know all of them, but that I think it is misguided to require every user to know everything we put in -Wall. -- Gaby
