On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote: >>> >>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes, >>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not >>> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-) >> >> It would even allow -Winf for the >> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful >> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or >> -Wover9000. > > Do we have bugzilla entry for that? > -- Gaby
I forgot the remark about -Wover9000: for many GCC users (that I eye-witnessed), not only -On is supposed to optimize more, but n can go beyond 999999 and it will give you better code than 99999 or 3. One can argue they should be reading the manual, but that is the whole point: many of them don't read the manual; they look at a switch name and draw inference from there. There is little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
