From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16577 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2009 12:25:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 16553 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Feb 2009 12:25:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (HELO exprod6og108.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:25:29 +0000 Received: from source ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSaU4tsMEfhH3QIDs6tfOhMomQIsuUN6M@postini.com; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:25:29 PST Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n1PCK7eM029473 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:20:08 -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 n1PCPPiq005458 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from excas03.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.123) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com (10.8.189.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.336.0; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:25:25 -0800 Received: from nambx04.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.127.98]) by excas03.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.123]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:25:25 -0800 From: "John (Eljay) Love-Jensen" To: GCC-help Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:25:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Where did the warning go? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49A53501.30304@ellipticsemi.com> 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/msg00206.txt.bz2 Hi everyone, [Tom]> I think most long term developers really just want the warnings for two things. Things that are undefined behaviour, and things that are likely a typo... I don=B9t mind keeping -Wall with the current meaning, and not deprecating = it. I, as a long term developer who has been developing for over 30 years, and in C/C++ for over 20 years, using GCC since 2.95 came out, do wish that there was a -Weverything flag that enabled all -W* toggle warnings. Why? Because I use GCC as a lint-like tool. I like to be able to see what warnings my code generates, vet those warnings and vet my code, then decide to disable the warning or fix my code. I deeply appreciate that GCC has taken on incorporating (sensible) lint-like functionality into the compiler itself, which uses -Wfoo toggles. (I can even appreciate that -Wall is "select popular warnings", and -Wextra is "select additional less popular warnings".) Right now, I have a command-line for GCC g++ that is very, very, very, very long, because I enable the warnings I know about. But I may have missed one or two. And more may come out with the next version of GCC that I am unaware about. I wish I had a -Weverything flag. As long as I'm making wishes, I also wish warnings were emitted like this: test.cpp:6: -Wunused warning: unused variable 'u' ...rather than... test.cpp:6: warning: unused variable 'u' Just my $0.02. Sincerely, --Eljay