------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-14 16:47 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > The current -Wall should be > renamed to something like -W3 to prevent misleading users.
It only misleading users who don't read the documentation. The all part is described in the documentation as: "This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros. " So the all is accurate in the sense it is all useful warnings; but it is not all warnings. Most folks don't want -Wformat-nonliteral and -Wformat-security in their warning set. Or even -Wmissing-include-dirs or even -Winvalid-pch which will warn if you have a PCH done for -O0 and one done for -O2 and you are compiling at -O2 (and yes this happens all the time). So your definition of -Wall is not very useful at all and will be even more misleading to users or why the warnings are happening. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40733
