On Feb 8, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > I don't quite see the need to move a warning *away* from -Wall. > > I understand that fixing large code bases is unpractical, I have some such > medium large (and oldish) code bases to deal with. However simply tuning the > Makefile (-Wno-covered-switch-default) is so simple that I don't quite > understand the reluctance here. > > It may require a (slight) change of mentality, but the obvious advantage of > blacklisting some warnings, is that at least you make explicit what is not > checked. > > I don't quite see why Open Source projects would reject a patch to add a few > -Wno-XXXX to their makefiles. Certainly this seems trivial and harmless.
Fair points. I'm certainly willing to discuss this further, but I would like some more data points/voices in this discussion.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
