Hi Marc, On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 12:32:45PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > -Wmaybe-uninitialized generates false positives, we can tweak the compiler > to reduce them, but there will always be some, that's in the nature of > this warning.
That is true for *every* warning; if not, it should be an error, not a warning. > My opinion is that -Wmaybe-uninitialized would serve its purpose better as > part of -Wextra. +1 > People tend to use -Wall with -Werror (either explicitly > or implicitly by modifying the code until all warnings are gone). What I > see currently in projects where I participate is that > -Wmaybe-uninitialized is making things worse. People don't investigate > deeply the cause of the warning, they just go for whatever "quick-fix" > makes the compiler shut up. Quite often, this involves extra code that is > less readable and performs worse, while it didn't even "fix" what caused > the warning, it just randomly ended up with code where the compiler > doesn't warn (possibly because the function got bigger, which changed > inlining decisions...). Yes, using -Werror is usually a terrible idea. > Note that similar arguments may apply to some other warnings that somehow > made their way into -Wall when they shouldn't have, but for now I am only > proposing to move -Wmaybe-uninitialized. Some people tend to consider that > if a warning is not part of -Wall, it might as well not exist. Obviously I > disagree with that. If it is not part of -Wall and not of -W, and not special purpose, then it might as well not exist. Segher
