Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> writes: > The argument is that we should enable the warnings by default because > it makes gcc more competitive. But that only makes gcc more > competitive if enabling these kinds of warnings by default is an > advantage. However, we haven't established that -Wall by default is > advantageous.
More warnings (if they're reasonable warning) enabled results in better, less buggy, more portable, code for users. That's surely an advantage for users, and making users happy is good for gcc, yes? [Moreover, by helping to prevent obscure bugs caused by bogus code, it can help avoid people thinking that "the compiler's broken".] -miles -- Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?
