"Manuel López-Ibáñez" ha scritto:
>But then the warning should report Winit-self (that is, use
>OPT_Winit_self for warning) and not OPT_Wuninitialized. Because it is
>what people should use to disabled it.
Ok, I'll do the change.
Thanks,
Paolo
On 13 September 2012 15:38, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> I think my preference would be to add -Winit-self to -Wall for C++; people
> can use -Wno-init-self if they don't want the warning.
But then the warning should report Winit-self (that is, use
OPT_Winit_self for warning) and not OPT_Wuninitializ
OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 09/13/2012 03:38 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 09/13/2012 09:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Jon noticed that for this testcase we don't warn at all even with -Wall,
whereas the code doesn't really make much sense. Turns out that the
warning is currently controlled both by warn_init_self (not
On 09/13/2012 09:28 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Jon noticed that for this testcase we don't warn at all even with -Wall,
whereas the code doesn't really make much sense. Turns out that the
warning is currently controlled both by warn_init_self (not part of
-Wall) and OPT_Wuninitialized. Thus Manuel
Hi,
Jon noticed that for this testcase we don't warn at all even with -Wall,
whereas the code doesn't really make much sense. Turns out that the
warning is currently controlled both by warn_init_self (not part of
-Wall) and OPT_Wuninitialized. Thus Manuel proposes to simply remove the
former,
