On Tuesday, May 08, 2012 04:21:06 bearophile wrote: > Jonathan M Davis: > > A good programmer will never leave _any_ warnings in committed > > code. > > Sometimes warnings are wrong, the compiler is not perfect. > If the compiler is certain there is a mistake in the code, then > generating an error is better. Bugs are probabilistic. > Good lints don't have just "errors", they report issues > classified in four or five levels of increasingly probability of > actual problem being present (naming them something like "Info", > "Note", "Warning", "Probable Error", and "Error").
If it's not something that _must_ be fixed, the compiler should _not_ complain about it precisely because you should _never_ leave any warnings in committed code. Leaving warnings in committed code (even if invalid) leads to valid warnings being missed and/or ignored, which leads to bugs being uncaught. If a compiler restricts itself to stuff which is _definitively_ wrong, then that isn't a problem. A compiler is _not_ a lint tool and shouldn't be treated as one. > > But certainly the normal thing to do would be to make -wi the > > default. It'll never happen, but it would be how most compilers > > work. > > Thank you Jonathan for the very nice way you kill this idea ;-) I > have some faith in future improvements still. It'll never happen because you'll never convince Walter of it. As Nick points out, it was a miracle to get him to add -wi in the first place. Feel free to try, but I'd be _very_ surprised if you managed it. - Jonathan M Davis
