Eli Zaretskii via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes: >> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 10:49:32 +0200 >> From: David Brown via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> >> >> > People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new >> > errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not >> > reaching the goal, but instead harming those who are well aware of the >> > warnings. >> >> My experience is that many of the people who ignore warnings are not >> particularly good developers, and not particularly good at >> self-improvement. They know how to ignore warnings - the attitude is >> "if it really was a problem, the compiler would have given an error >> message, not a mere warning". They don't know how to disable error >> messages, and won't bother to find out. So they will, in fact, be a lot >> more likely to fix their code. > > If some developers want to ignore warnings, it is not the business of > GCC to improve them, even if you are right in assuming that they will > not work around errors like they work around warnings (and I'm not at > all sure you are right in that assumption). But by _forcing_ these > errors on _everyone_, GCC will in effect punish those developers who > have good reasons for not changing the code. > >> > IOW, if we are targeting people for whom warnings are not enough, then >> > we have already lost the battle. Discipline cannot be forced by >> > technological means, because people will always work around. >> > >> >> Agreed. But if we can make it harder for them to release bad code, >> that's good overall. > > I'm okay with making it harder, but without making it too hard for > those whose reasons for not changing the code are perfectly valid. > This proposal crosses that line, IMNSHO.
Could you give an example of how to make it harder without crossing the line for you?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
