[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: [RFC] -Weverything
From:       Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel () lauterbach ! com>
Date:       2019-01-23 11:21:39
Message-ID: 12c2c542-28a0-df4a-48a6-ac3a83001d34 () lauterbach ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Am 2019-01-22 um 19:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:46, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
>>> every warning there is?
>>>
>>> I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances, especially
>>> to find potential bugs with warnings that people, for some reason
>>> or other, found too noisy for -Wextra.
>>>
>>> The name could be something else, of course. In the best GNU tradition,
>>> -Wkitchen-sink could be another option :-)
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31573 and duplicates already
>> list quite a few arguments. Basically, it could be useful for debugging
>> gcc or to discover warnings, but gcc devs fear that users will actually
>> use it for real.
> 
> Every LLVM dev I've spoken to thinks their -Weverything was a mistake
> and hates it. It was meant to be for option discovery by automated
> tools, but users started using it.
> 

The LLVM devs may hate it, but as maintainer of a multi-platform 
multi-compiler automated build framework I _love_ -Weverything. It's 
much easier to handle a compiler upgrade this way without missing any 
new warnings not enabled by -Wall -Wextra. When a new warning shows up 
due to the changed compiler I can immediately decide if I want to 
disable it, leave it as a warning or turn it into an error. Longterm 
maintenance of a -Wno-* list is also a lot less error prone than a 
positive -W* list in my experience.

Franz
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]