> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 10:49:32 +0200 > From: David Brown via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > > People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new > > errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not > > reaching the goal, but instead harming those who are well aware of the > > warnings. > > My experience is that many of the people who ignore warnings are not > particularly good developers, and not particularly good at > self-improvement. They know how to ignore warnings - the attitude is > "if it really was a problem, the compiler would have given an error > message, not a mere warning". They don't know how to disable error > messages, and won't bother to find out. So they will, in fact, be a lot > more likely to fix their code.
If some developers want to ignore warnings, it is not the business of GCC to improve them, even if you are right in assuming that they will not work around errors like they work around warnings (and I'm not at all sure you are right in that assumption). But by _forcing_ these errors on _everyone_, GCC will in effect punish those developers who have good reasons for not changing the code. > > IOW, if we are targeting people for whom warnings are not enough, then > > we have already lost the battle. Discipline cannot be forced by > > technological means, because people will always work around. > > > > Agreed. But if we can make it harder for them to release bad code, > that's good overall. I'm okay with making it harder, but without making it too hard for those whose reasons for not changing the code are perfectly valid. This proposal crosses that line, IMNSHO.
