From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-173582-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11669 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2012 20:26:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 11658 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2012 20:26:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:26:25 +0000
Received: by obbuo13 with SMTP id uo13so5487667obb.20        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.14.166 with SMTP id q6mr6988710oec.17.1333916785191; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.92.168 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F81F168.8080200@adacore.com>
References: <CAAiZkiDuX94Qf3-1EONGVnxX4nsxhdHLemg9kSZRVVaarTQ-OA@mail.gmail.com>	<4F7C39B2.6060802@redhat.com>	<mcr398jv93g.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com>	<CAAiZkiAeztsaOU9hW0Gq16zV36LtA=fkDsCJ0nWqQ5ohdjGDxg@mail.gmail.com>	<m3hawv9pvh.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>	<878vi7tbpk.fsf@catnip.gol.com>	<m37gxquubs.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>	<CAH6eHdTNGDttz14mcX8CM3yXwkOAX=zzB_+nU83Qdx3dGCxCRA@mail.gmail.com>	<4F81DE14.4090305@adacore.com>	<CAH6eHdQjMi=9OCr0gUQe6C-ZA26m9Wbk4MfFJGVRQQE21dzpJA@mail.gmail.com>	<4F81ED07.2040003@adacore.com>	<CAH6eHdRrqwGaW8K-3bpEsUzNw-R9h+K_sD3BTYLGB8jYtbn8Ng@mail.gmail.com>	<4F81F168.8080200@adacore.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:26:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAAiZkiDq6Ecf3xjyFMT2TzPW1RoveoX_6igz4LjVo7wMeBAOMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: -Wall by default
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, 	Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

>> But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
>> default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
>> with very little chance of false positives would avoid most of the
>> negative consequences.
>
>
> Yes, I think that is the case! That's certainly the philosophy we
> follow in GNAT.

and I think that is all this is about.  I am puzzled we are still arguing...