On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:17 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > (as I mentioned in my reply to Bob - many of the warnings in -Wall are > prone to the same criticism as -Wcovered-switch-default - they would > produce a bunch of false positives/violations in any existing code > base that hadn't been built with the warning all along (-Wswitch > itself, or -Wparentheses, etc). So how did they get into -Wall to > begin with? Is the right answer that -Wall is immutable as soon as it > shipped? I'd imagine that there are users who expect that to be true > (as you've mentioned) & also users who would be rather surprised by > this & expect the opposite)
I think the "right answer" is that there isn't one clear policy. Warnings are warnings. Some people like them, some people don't. Deciding what goes in -Wall, what's on by default, etc., all comes down to a nuanced discussion of how a *particular* warning impacts existing code, whether it has benefit, etc.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
