On 04/23/2012 02:52 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 04/23/2012 02:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >>> If you don't want to know about potential problems, you don't have to >>> use -Weverything (or -Wall -Wextra). Folks who are interested in all >>> potential problems could use it (if available). >> >> I don't think so, given the variety of odd style warnings. >> >> I'm not even sure that the warnings are compatible with each other! >> Anyone who just turns on *everything* is probably either doing so >> because they're clueless because or a pointy-haired boss said "no >> warnings." > I fall into the later (but I'm not a boss). A clean compile is a security gate. But a clean compile with no GCC warnings is not a security gate. > When I start seeing problems with, for example, -Wconversion, I start > questioning the lack of attention to detail and wonder if I'm dealing > with a lazy or sloppy programmer or someone who has thought each > warning through. I then write a negative test case and usually find > its a sloppy programmer. Yes. Some warnings are important, and some aren't. You have to be discriminating or you mess up your program. Consider, for instance, -Wdouble-promotion. If you're working on an embedded system you might want this; if you're working on a desktop system you probably don't. And do you want -Wtraditional ? I doubt it. Andrew.
