> That is not at all what I wanted. The compiler does not identify > all potential problems, only things that it knows for sure are problems. > That seems pretty worthless! Why isn't there an option that flags ALL > potential problems? > > I can imagine that the reason there isn't is because, as you say, it is a > harder problem, and the gcc writers don't want to get involved. > That is what the microsoft C++ team said in a faq page when someone asked > why their compiler didn't find all of the interesting information.
Yes. And Microsoft, IBM, and other big companies, as well as open source projects, are tackling this problem in other ways. The static analysis tools I pointed you to gives you an idea of what's going on. > So, it looks like I have to deal with the fact that variables are > initialized or uninitialized in the generator, and I cannot > rely on the compiler for accurate information. The compiler's primary job is to turn correct programs into correct machine code. A secondary job is to warn the user when the program might not behave like the user expects it to (i.e. uninitialized variables, etc), but this is not a primary function. If you read the C/C++ standards you will find that it doesn't require compilers to issue uninitialized variable diagnostics at all. The open source gcc compiler's progress seems to reflect the fact that most people are more interested in fast code generation, correct compilation, high levels of optimization, standards conformance, and useful extensions over better warnings. The tides are changing slowly - more warnings have been added in the recent years - but I don't expect miracles in that area in gcc any time soon. -Frank -- ---------------------------------- Frank Wallingford [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 4 - Sqeak! and eToys Jul 2 - KVM (Tenative) Aug 6 - Zenos Sep 3 - TBD
