From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22611 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2009 20:39:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 22598 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2009 20:39:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:39:25 +0000 Received: from spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.142]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n1NKdNqC013396; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:39:23 GMT Received: from smtp.corp.google.com (spacemonkey1.corp.google.com [192.168.120.115]) by spaceape8.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n1NKdKNO022015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:39:21 -0800 Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (adsl-71-133-8-30.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [71.133.8.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.corp.google.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NKdJ8A023958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:39:19 -0800 To: "Eivind LM" Cc: "gcc-help\@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Where did the warning go? References: <204DEA5423F3BF47A6EE88C4E2979EC66BE32F0370@nambx04.corp.adobe.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:39:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Eivind LM's message of "Fri\, 20 Feb 2009 16\:40\:42 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true 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/msg00161.txt.bz2 "Eivind LM" writes: > Next question: Does the -Wall flag have a long and complicated history? No, though certainly the details have changed over time. > The name indicates that it enables ... well, uh, ... *all* warnings. (Yes, > i should have read the docs more carefully.) As the docs say, -Wall enables all warnings which can be easily avoided by changing the soure code. > I would like to compile my code with absolutely as many compiler warnings > enabled as possible, and then selectively deactivate the ones that I > cannot avoid in a reasonable way. That is pretty much the goal of -Wall. The warnings which are not included in -Wall are either difficult to avoid in some cases or are specific to certain programming styles. > Is there a way to enable absolutely all? -Weverything? :) No, that would not be useful. Nobody writes code in the intersection of all the programming styles supported by all the warning options. We are certainly open to changing the ways that the warnings are aggregated into -Wall and -Wextra, including adding a new aggregation warning if it seems useful. However, -Weverything is unlikely to be accepted. Ian