http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini 2012-10-09
17:20:35 UTC ---
Uhm, I was under the impression that the other 2 used to give problems and
that's why we don't warn anymore by default. Bah. All in all, given that we
have the warning anyway, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-09
17:06:25 UTC ---
The problem of default warnings without options is that default warnings are
often the most useful and, hence, the ones that people would like to make an
error with -Werror=. U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-09
16:58:36 UTC ---
In any case, there are only 3 warnings in -Wempty-body. All of them seem worth
to warn by default.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill 2012-04-13
19:07:58 UTC ---
Specifically about if(); without an else, sure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #3 from davidxl 2012-04-12 23:11:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36478 .
thanks. I tried -Wempty-body, gcc gives warning as expected:
emptyif.cpp: In function 'int test(int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:49:24 UTC ---
Yes, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36478 .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52961
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-12
22:47:23 UTC ---
I think we had this warning and then removed it. Let me find the history which
I think is in bugzilla already.
