From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8786 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2010 10:16:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 8668 invoked by uid 48); 3 Jun 2010 10:16:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100603101624.8667.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/2972] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #13 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-03 10:16 ------- About -Weffc++, we also have a PR (16166) about splitting it... Not that I think we should really do that - adding a dozen of -Weffc++-type warnings - but I believe it would be a good idea to finally resolve one way or the other all those long standing -Weffc++ PRs (we have 5 or 6)... If you ask my opinion, we should probably *not* split the option, and instead reduce *a lot* the false positives for the various warnings, even if that means adding false negatives. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972