On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König <t...@tkoenig.net> wrote:
> >
> > Am 27.01.19 um 21:52 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> >
> > > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
> > > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 default warnings.
> > > -Wlevel=1 is equivalent to -Wall. -Wlevel=2 is -Wall -Wextra
> > > (and maybe -Wsurprising).
> >
> > ... and -Wlevel=3 could then be -Wkitchen-sink, at least from the
> > Fortran-only side. :-)
> >
> > I quite like that idea. I don't think -Wall will be deprecated soon,
> > but -Wlevel sounds like a good thing to implement.
>
> Maybe instead of -Wlevel= why not just -W0, -W1, -W2, -W3; -W would be
> -W1 (because -W already exists)? Just like -O :).
-Wextra is an alternative spelling for -W, which should be the same as -W1
(if you want to make this similar to -O<n>); and -W0 would mean warnings
off, which already has an option, -w (while -o is something else).
-O and -W cannot be made very similar.
-Wall is not the warnings with low false positive rate, or low hit rate
("noisy"). The criterion (shared with -Wextra) is that it is easy to shut
up the warning by doing a trivial, obvious change to the code. This is
of course highly subjective (not that other considerations like "how useful
is this warning" are any better!)
Segher
