From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10622 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2009 15:43:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10605 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2009 15:43:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (HELO exprod6og106.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.191) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:43:11 +0000 Received: from source ([192.150.8.22]) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSaQViMCE9LKXk+PbW++OtO2pgtwviBPn@postini.com; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:43:10 PST Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n1OFh1E0008796; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:43:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n1OFh0iq019187; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:43:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nambx04.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.127.98]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:43:00 -0800 From: "John (Eljay) Love-Jensen" To: Eivind LM , GCC-help Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:43:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Where did the warning go? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 Hi Eivind, > If -Weverything is impossible, then I wish a flag that enables every > single warning that might be relevant for my programming style. Probably > others would want this for their programming styles too. But if there are > too many different programming styles to have -Weverything-style-*, then > how about having -Weverything anyway, and let people disable warnings that > don't fit with their style? CAVEAT: -Weverything (were it to be incorporated) would only enable toggle flag warnings. It would not enable exceeded threshold warnings (since those warnings have to be supplied a threshold parameter) or parameter based warnings (since those warnings require a parameter). I, for one, am entirely in favor of a -Weverything flag, and then explicitly opt-out, ala -Wno-foo, on a case-by-case basis. I have asked for that feature in the past, on this forum, but did not meet with any interest amongst the GCC developers, nor any interest (at that time*) from other GCC users. For the self-same reasons expressed in this recent discussion. Of course, there's always the GCC is open source, add the flag yourself option. (I do often build my own GCC, but I don't normally fiddle with the source code.) Sincerely, --Eljay * Now there is both of us! :-)