On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> While we have some good evidence that there is a better pattern (the one this > warning pushes people toward), but there is a considerable amount of code > that currently follows one of the old patterns. > > To me, the question of whether we should try to drive code toward a single > style through a -Wall should be answered by looking at how buggy the existing > patterns are, and how frequently they are followed. For code I've looked at, > this warning occurs fairly frequently, and has found few or no bugs. For code > I've looked at, the converse pattern added to -Wparentheses fired fairly > infrequently, and in a reasonable number of cases found bugs. > > Given that, I think -Wcovered-switch-default is useful to folks who are > willing to switch coding patterns to one we can defend against future bugs, > but I fear it has too high of a "falso positive" from people who are > satisfied with finding related bugs via 'abort()' or 'assert()' or whatever > to place under -Wall. > Thanks so much for the perspective. I completely agree with these points, which was part of my original motivation for pulling this warning out of -Wall.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
