From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10294 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2012 10:16:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 10286 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2012 10:16:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:16:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F041290030; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V2dkTBr5htKv; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314B9290009; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:16:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 525) id 2546B164961; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 12:16:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:16:00 -0000 From: Arnaud Charlet To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Richard Guenther , Pedro Alves , gcc Subject: Re: RFC: -Wall by default Message-ID: <20120405101630.GA9348@adacore.com> References: <4F7D5EB4.2060903@redhat.com> <20120405100409.GA5596@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 > From the list I gave earlier: > > -Wformat > -Wimplicit > -Wreturn-type > -Wsequence-point > -Wswitch > -Waddress > -Wstrict-aliasing > -Wenum-compare > -Wreorder > -Wpointer-sign OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point that could be a bit refined (not sure -Wstrict-aliasing is so useful by default for instance for legacy code), certainly much more reasonable than 'enable -Wall by default', since as I said, switches such as -Wuninitialized may generate lots of false positives, annoying people. > > BTW, I don't think -pedantic should be enabled by default, or this > > wouldn't be "pedantic" anymore. > > I am not proposing that in this discussion. I was answering a question. Sure, but this still gives us a perspective and datapoint that what some users ask and consider as 'obvious' are actually not reasonable requests. Arno