On Apr 11, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Okay; I'm willing to accept that my knowledge of GCC is outdated.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.
By "baseline" I meant our listed minimum compilers, although I agree that rather than worrying about those, it makes sense to just rely on newer toolchains to catch the bugs, kill the warning on older ones, and encourage clang contributors to live on modern compilers. John.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
