https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #5 from Ricardo Abreu <ricardolafabreu at gmail dot com> --- > It has an unambiguous meaning: > > $ gcc -Q --help=warnings | fgrep maybe-uninit > -Wmaybe-uninitialized [disabled] > $ gcc -Q --help=warnings -Wall | fgrep maybe-uninit > -Wmaybe-uninitialized [enabled] > > That's what it means by "enables". The sentence I quoted says -Wall enables a certain group of warnings, not flags. It goes on to characterize that group. It conveys information on its own, without directing to sub-flags. I understand there is a more restrictive sense of "enables" where the sentence is correct. It is the same as when saying that the on position of a switch enables current to go through, in a circuit that requires two switches for current to actually flow. But this is not the only viable one when reading the sentence. Not even, I believe, the most intuitive. Therein lies ambiguity. Even if reading the whole docs later restricts possible interpretations, humans are not compilers and I propose the manual would be clearer if the necessary clarification was offered where needed. I don't see what the motivation would be to inform that a class of flags enable warnings without explaining that enablement is dependent on other flags. This is just this user's feedback, do with it as you see fit. IMO, the patch you propose is already an obvious improvement.
