From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29961 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2005 05:06:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29776 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2005 05:06:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2005 05:06:15 -0000 Received: from [10.0.1.3] (h000393256f12.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <20050218050613011000sonae>; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:06:15 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:08:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Add -Werror to build_warnings From: Paul Schlie To: Zack Weinberg CC: Alan Modra , Ben Elliston , , Nick Clifton Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87r7jebhqu.fsf@codesourcery.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 > From: Zack Weinberg > Would you please write complete sentences? Your telegraphic style is > extremely difficult to read. >> Paul Schlie writes: >> - Fully understand your position in general, however honestly question the >> utility of the specific warning: of a comparison between two pointers to >> otherwise equivalent rank data types which only in sign-ness; as it's not >> clear that such a comparison could ever lead to unintended consequences, > > You are mistaken. We flushed all these warnings out of GCC about a > year ago, and we found real bugs. Mostly, if I recall correctly, they > were cases where the two pointers should never have been being > compared in the first place, and this was the only diagnostic you got. - OK, I accept that it basically forces you to at least look; at which time you may discover something that wasn't intended somewhere. Which one could argue is better than nothing. Thanks,