On Mon, 2018-09-24 at 22:39 +0000, Sasha Levin wrote: > The reasoning behind it was similar to the "no warnings" reasoning of > upstream: there might be real issues hiding in the sea of "harmless" > warnings, so we want to get rid of all of them to catch real issues. I believe this to be a poor idea for -stable acceptance. It's impossible to know when gcc or any other compiler would decide to add any new warning.
