On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:03, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 20:00, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote: >> For me the goal of the warning is to warn about non-portable code, not annoy >> people. Format specifiers and format string extensions covered by POSIX are >> by definition portable on POSIX-compliant systems. So I raise the question >> of whether or not we should warn about these at all? > > I agree that a good warning about non-portable code, that could be > turned on by default or as part of -Wall, would be the ideal. > > However, we're not there yet. In the meantime, I think having a > warning under -pedantic that warns about non-ISO C format strings > makes sense. I agree that it would be extremely annoying to warn about > POSIX extensions by default, but under -pedantic I think users would > expect to get warnings about these, just as with GCC. > > Maybe the wording of the warnings and the name of the flag could be > changed to make this intention more clear. I agree that just saying > "non-standard" is a bit vague in the light of some of these features > actually being standardized under POSIX. > > - Hans
Ping. How do we proceed with this? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
