Hi Bartlomiej, >> Maybe. Did you have all the warnings turned on? > by means of -Wall ? yes, they were turned on Not merely -Wall, which ironically does not enable all the warnings. But actually enable all the warnings (less whichever ones you've decided can/should be ignored)? Note: GCC does not have -Wall-really-all-I-really-really-mean-it flag. You have to enable many warnings by hand. (Most people probably wouldn't want ALL those picayune warnings enabled, especially since the standard header files themselves generate a lot of warnings.) GCC does not -- and likely never will -- have a "enable all warnings" flag. I enable almost all warnings, with the exceptions of: -Wno-unreachable-code # templates generate bazillion warnings -Wno-long-long # "long long" 64-bit integer language extension -Wno-four-char-constants # 'ABCD' 32-bit four-char-code language extension -Wno-aggregate-return # objects as return types -Wno-system-headers # system headers are noisy, otherwise ... parameterized warnings, e.g., -Wlarger-than-<len> ... and all the non-C++ warnings (since I program in C++) The warnings I enable accounts for about 140 lines of my Makefile. > it seems that more aggressive optimisation triggers code bugs, maybe it > could be used for bug finding itself ? Which is what the warning flags do. They help detect questionable code. (Caution: sometime too many spurious warnings.) But warnings alone cannot prevent bad code. Bad code can be written in any language. Sincerely, --Eljay
