On Oct 29, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think there's a reasonable workflow for small projects which > involves using -Weverything and subtracting out the warnings which > don't make sense. Right. I commented about this in my other email before I saw your response. > I agree that there are limits to what we can/should > do with -Weverything; I'm not trying to argue for getting rid of > warnings because they make -Weverything too noisy. On the other hand, > I think we should have a high standard for the usefulness of > off-by-default warnings. And I think that there's future > infrastructure work we can do both to help people write higher quality > code. Agreed. FWIW, the developers we have spoken to about -Weverything really like how it has been very helpful in discovering warning flags that are very good for their codebase. > >>> it isn't acceptable for it to trigger warnings for usage >>> of headers included with the compiler, and as far as I can tell, there >>> isn't any way to fix the header. (See patch for a testcase that >>> checks we don't trigger any warnings from stdbool.h.) >>> >>> I'm planning to commit this unless someone has an alternative suggestion. >> >> Could you suppress the warning if the spelling location for the token >> which would have been expanded is in a system header? > > I think that would end up being more confusing than helpful because it > suppresses some, but not all, loops involving system macros. > > I would put more effort into this if I thought it was generally > useful, but the fact that it isn't on by default, and that the headers > included with clang manage to trigger it, and there isn't any specific > class of users this is useful for, all indicate it isn't worth the > effort. If others agree with this argument, I can see a strong argument here to remove the warning entirely.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
