On 10/12/2016 01:04 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
I'm more concerned about the first impression that people will get from
this warning. If the fist couple of samples they will look at are
clearly bogus (as with the example comments above) they will very
quickly disable the warning.

And if a small one digit percentage of all potential issues falls
through the cracks with -Wimplicit-fallthrough=1 , so be it.

Yes. Better to give mostly sensible warnings, making people aware of the option and maybe encouraging to try higher levels, rather than generating a huge amount of noise which will result in some people turning the warning off, some making pointles or even incorrect changes to their code (as we saw in gcc itself), and generating bad publicity.


Reply via email to