From: Peter Reilly <peterreilly@...>
Date: 2005-05-03T18:04:58+09:00
Subject: Re: -Wall

Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> Jim Helm wrote:
>
>> And by not showing us the warnings, you foster a false sense of
>> security that "all is well".  One indication of a high quality project
>> is that it will compile cleanly with -Wall on it's primary target
>> platforms.
>
>
> -Wall on GNU gcc complains about perfectly legal C code that doesn't 
> need fixing.

All warnings are legal C code - some may need fixing. For example, I 
accidently mixed
signed with unsigned in code. The code looked as if it worked for 2 
years, before we made
a small change to another piece of code and this caused the error to be 
triggered.

Peter

>   The production of certain messages may rather be an indication that 
> the GNU gcc compiler is broken then if one's believes that -Wall has 
> anything to do with quality code.  After all, you should see what 
> -Wall on the Intel compiler spits out.  It even warns you if it 
> suspects the source author's cholesterol is too high.  Hey and why not 
> -W ?   Even then all the possible warning messages still aren't turned 
> on.  I've complained about -Wparentheses in particular having no 
> business in -Wall as it flags several "style" issues.   Assignment in 
> conditional and the misleading ambiguous if/else.  The message for 
> the  latter should read "unambiguous statements found!!!" as there's 
> nothing ambiguous about any of them in C. ;-)
>
> -- 
> J Lambert
>
>
>