From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2211 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2003 14:54:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2189 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2003 14:54:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030714145443.2188.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030709142428.11474.lloyd@randombit.net> References: <20030709142428.11474.lloyd@randombit.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11474] -Wreturn-type should default to on when compiling C++ X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01580.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11474 ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-07-14 14:54 ------- Subject: Re: -Wreturn-type should default to on when compiling C++ "bangerth at dealii dot org" writes: | What's wrong with asking people to please compile their code with -W -Wall? In some circumstances, there are not practical. I do not have strong feelings about warning by default. | There are good reasons for most of the warning flags we have, there are reasons we have flags. That they are "good" depends on your definition of "good", and is certainly a matter of debate. The issue is whether the warning should be on by default or not. The same arguments you're making can be used for having the warning on by default and telling people to use the -Wno- corresponding flags. As you can see, the line you're reasoning cannot be determining. | so people should | just learn to use warning flags. It's not gcc's task to _think_ for | programmers unless they specifically ask for it. But it just does that by deciding which flags to turn off by default! -- Gaby