From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62463 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2015 15:10:14 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 62407 invoked by uid 48); 25 Apr 2015 15:10:08 -0000 From: "david at doublewise dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/53313] Add warning levels Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:10:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: easyhack X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: david at doublewise dot net X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg02181.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313 --- Comment #13 from David Stone --- I understand the difference between the two. I just prefer an opt-out system of warnings instead of opt-in. If absolutely no one could possibly want a warning, it shouldn't exist. If some users would want the warning, I may be one of those users at some point and I'd like to see it.