On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay; I'm willing to accept that my knowledge of GCC is outdated. If > you're certain > that all the tools we care about hosting on have conservative enough > -Wuninitialized > diagnostics that the correlated-branches problem is no longer a problem, > then > I agree that we should do what we can to enable better dynamic checking. > I think so. If you see warnings because of this, poke me (or others) to fix the build system. We should be able to turn off the warning on older toolchains, and still catch any bugs with the modern build bots. > > I don't know how old "sufficiently old" is relative to the LLVM/clang > stated baseline. > I don't think the aggressive warning ever got into an open source release... I think it was split pretty soon after Ted got it implemented and enabled. But I don't remember that in detail either. Anyways, its easy to test in the build system by looking for the fine-grained flag name so we can fix this if it comes up.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
