http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-30
13:16:16 UTC ---
I don't have a strong opinion on whether numeric levels or Weverything are a
good idea or not. However, the issues you mention with -Wextra and -Weffc++
(PR16166) are clear-cut: if you propose a patch fixing them, they will be
accepted.
There is also the problem that the infrastructure for defining flags that
enable other flags is quite rudimentary PR53063. If done properly, the
documentation about which warnings enable other warnings could be automatically
generated.
If you really really want to implement a -Weverything, I would start by
submitting a patch that makes -Weverything = -Wall + -Wextra + -Wconversion + a
bunch of generally useful warnings not included in -Wall or -Wextra and see
what happens. Probably you will need to negotiate the specific list of warnings
(or the name of -Weverything, e.g., -Wparanoid) with the maintainers, but I
think that it should be possible to find a set of "very noisy but sometimes
useful" warnings.
But the key point is that very likely nobody is going to implement any of this
for you.
Clang introduced the concept of categories for diagnostics, which seems much
more interesting to me than numeric levels. But I don't really know what is the
consensus about this in GCC.
