Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I recently added the new -Wjump-misses-init warning option. It warns
when a goto or switch jumps into the scope of an initialized variable
without actually initializing the variable. I added the warning to
-Wall because it seems to me to fit the criteria of -Wall: a dubious
code practice which is easy to avoid.
H.J. filed PR 40500 about this, arguing that this warning should not be
in -Wall.
Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall?
My opinion is that -Wall should have almost all the warnings. Otherwise,
it is misnamed. Besides, what I understand of Ian's description fits
nicely of a situation I would like to be warned.
(as a general case, in C, I try hard to initialize all local variables).
Ian, did this warning trigger a lot of new messages while bootstrapping gcc?
Regards.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
