public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/87656] Useful flags to enable with -Wall or -Wextra Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 10:51:30 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-87656-4-oROaNV3SYK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-87656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16) > Note, what is most important with this are configure scripts, if we start > warning on something still widely used in configure snippets, we'll get > silently different results of configure checks. A configure check that isn't specifically for some warning) that gives different results if some random warning happens, is fundamentally broken already. I would hope existing checks are more robust (but I certainly believe they are not :-( ) > For old style definitions, the question is if we want to warn about > void foo () {} style of functions or just those which actually have some > arguments. We can have a =2 to warn for everything, and =1 for just the more serious things? Easy to switch default for -Wall and -W that way, too.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-03 10:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-87656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2021-10-26 8:39 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2021-11-13 21:49 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-11-14 12:53 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-10 5:55 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-27 10:25 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2022-04-28 16:56 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-28 17:49 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org 2022-04-28 22:47 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-29 9:19 ` dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2022-04-29 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-03 10:51 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-06-08 0:50 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-24 22:28 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-10 13:29 ` tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-87656-4-oROaNV3SYK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).