On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
I was asked wassup with Robert?. All I can say s
On 4/13/2012 2:03 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
I was
On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means
On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
No you don't. You said:
People easily associates some ordering to numbers
On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name
On 12/04/2012 16:35, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
and | .
There are probably some programmers who completely know
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:09 PM, NightStrike wrote:
Can the -Winf option really happen? It should be easy to make that
turn on every -W option without having the manually list them and keep
it up to date. Like, it should be easy, I would hope, to make that be
automatic. Even if just used as a
2012/4/11 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
warning. I would not want it on by
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || --
in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || --
in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is really
On 4/12/2012 5:55 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
... and it's quite possible that such bugs resulting from adding
parentheses means that the programmer fixing the code didn't
actually know the right precedence!
or that the layout (which is what in practice we should rely on
to make things clear with
On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific
2012/4/12 Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com:
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || --
in the
On 04/12/2012 10:46 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || --
in the
On 4/12/12 6:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
How about a warning level?
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Indeed.
On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Yes, of course I 100% agree with that. But then by your definition
code
On 04/12/2012 02:03 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Yes, of course I 100% agree
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard
On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Sorry for the confusion: I intended to write
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Using two different
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Me too!
I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long
hard-to-type
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Me
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall
On 04/12/2012 03:36 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Using two different
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
creates
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
People easily associates some ordering to
On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What is nonsensical there?
But they *are* ordinal.
Now? What is the order?
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
It works just fine for -O,
Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What is nonsensical there?
But they *are* ordinal.
Now? What is the order?
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
What exactly do you
On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Certainly, everything that adds to clarity (and has no runtime costs!)
is desirable. But adding parentheses may not add to clarity if doing
so also obfuscates the code. There is a cost to the reader due to a
blizzard of syntactically redundant
On 4/12/2012 11:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
What exactly do you put in -Wn to make it give *more* warning?
I can think of a reduced number of switch that would give you
more warning on a specific program without them
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
and | .
There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator
precedence rules in C.
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
It would even allow -Winf for the
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
-O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimization options.
Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
-O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
you may find
On 04/12/2012 04:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
-O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
Robert Dewar escreveu:
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
and | .
There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator
On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is
little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
control used to have lots of files lying around called foo.final.c,
foo.final.reallyfinal.c,
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
No you don't. You said:
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
creates another set of
On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It would even allow -Winf for the
sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
-Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
-Wover9000.
Do we have bugzilla entry for that?
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There is
little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
control used to have lots
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
No you don't. You said:
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It would even allow -Winf for the
sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
-Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
-Wover9000.
Do
On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
monotonically increasing version numbers, instead of just one that means this
is done now.
As I observed
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
monotonically increasing version
On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the observation.
and
nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
I think you don't know what incompleteness is about, yes, it is
nonsense, because no one can make
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the
observation.
and
nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
I think you don't know what
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
On 2012-04-05 16:44:28 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/5/2012 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Personally, as a matter of *style*, I eliminate such cases either by
initializing the variable or restructuring the function. But this is very
much a question of style, not of correctness.
Indeed,
On 2012-04-10 14:48:05 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
On 2012-04-08 18:56:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Anyway, GCC prints the option that controls a warning as part of the
diagnostic, so it's trivial to find which options control the
diagnostics that are annoying you.
And it's fine that using the -Wno-... form doesn't make the
compilation
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
write too
On 04/11/2012 05:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
warning. I would not want it on
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
O
This one is an interesting case, since there are strong arguments on
both sides.
I enabled the C++ warning about the precedence of and || (it's been
in C for many years). It found real bugs in real code, bugs that had
existed for years.
I think for ordinary programmers, the fact that AND
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually...
AS It doesn't have to be short: -Wdefault-warnings.
I haven't looked at all of the replies since I posted, and I *had*
forgotten about -Wextra (I can't even remember how many years it has
been since I last read that section of
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean warning already, e.g. it's -Wall and not -Wall-warnings.
--
Eric Botcazou
2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean warning already, e.g. it's -Wall and
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though,
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against -Wdefault: common
also has a special commonly (ahem :) used
On 04/05/2012 03:21 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess,
but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what
On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
The argument is that we should enable the warnings by default because
it makes gcc more competitive. But that only makes gcc more
competitive if enabling these kinds of warnings by default is an
advantage. However, we haven't established that -Wall by
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
write too many parentheses in ((ab)||(cd)) which
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or would have been
fixed long ago)?
Perhaps we should move this class of
@gcc.gnu.org; Miles Bader; Gabriel Dos
Reis; Ian Lance Taylor; Andrew Haley
Subject: Re: RFC: -Wall by default
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
understood
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or
On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeiferger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeiferger...@pfeifer.com
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that
That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default, most people would not have
to learn yet
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We are in agreement. I was just explaining to Gerald that his proposal
would have been my first choice, but I am compromising by moving to
your suggestion. My complaint is the introduction of a new switch
just to accomodate warnings that should not
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default,
On 9 April 2012 18:29, Eric Botcazou wrote:
That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
Hopefully, it is it is going to be the
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
-Wdefault
might be better
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
I agree.
I have been
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
wouldn't have anything to do with standards
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net writes:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the
MB == Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
MB [Or, perhaps, not -Wall perse, but maybe a new option which
MB is a little more conservative, -Wstandard or something...]
Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
depending on the chosen list. It is the idea of turing all
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
MB == Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org writes:
MB [Or, perhaps, not -Wall perse, but maybe a new option which
MB is a little more conservative, -Wstandard or something...]
Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default
On 07/04/2012 23:58, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
-Wunused-function
-Wunused-label
-Wunused-value
-Wunused-variable
IMHO we should move the -Wunused ones into -Wextra if we're going to turn on
-Wall by default. The rest seem pretty reasonable
On 8 April 2012 16:16, James Cloos wrote:
Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
depending on the chosen list. It is the idea of turing all possible
warning options on by default which is unreasonable.
Noone's suggested doing that. As Gaby said, -Wall doesn't turn
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I see no evidence that supports that guess. On the contrary, I
would guess that if -Wall is set by
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I see no evidence that
On 8 April 2012 19:51, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I see no evidence that supports that guess. On the
On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so having them in bugzilla is good.
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
On 8 April 2012 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so having them in bugzilla is good.
Do you really want me
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
No, because those are already in bugzilla, and there's a whole wiki
page about improving that particular warning.
Yes, I know, and that page is to me good justification for NOT including
this warning in the set that is on by default.
But I'd be
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewarde...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so having them in bugzilla is
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
with very little chance of false
On 4/8/2012 4:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I think I agree with this. I suspect the only difference might be that
I do not believe the fix is necessarily to turn them off.
Well there are three possibilities
a) fix the false positives, at the possible expense of introducing
new false
1 - 100 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
