On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 04:32:50PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though > >>he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't > >>flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void > >>function, due to the presence of the "-w" option. He points out that > >>clang++ wtill flags the promoted warning even though warnings are > >>inhibited. > > > >I think -w is ordered with respect to the other warning obtions, and > >-w inhibits previously requested warnings, and future -W flags may > >enable other warnings. With this in mind, I agree that the current > >GCC behavior is consistent and probably not a bug. > > The general rule of thumb documented in the manual is that more > specific options take precedence over more general ones, regardless > of where they appear on the command line:
Currently, -w is a nice easy quick way of shutting up all warnings whenever they are getting in the way. Let's keep it that way. [ Most warnings are heuristic, so they misfire sometimes. ] Segher
