On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König wrote:
> >
> > Am 27.01.19 um 21:52 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> >
> > > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
> > > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 defaul
On Jan 27 2019, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König wrote:
>
> > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
> > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 default warnings.
> > -Wle
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 01:19:08PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König wrote:
> >
> > Am 27.01.19 um 21:52 schrieb Steve Kargl:
> >
> > > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
> > > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 defaul
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:02 PM Thomas König wrote:
>
> Am 27.01.19 um 21:52 schrieb Steve Kargl:
>
> > In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
> > in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 default warnings.
> > -Wlevel=1 is equivalent to -Wall. -Wlevel=2 is -Wall -Wext
Am 27.01.19 um 21:52 schrieb Steve Kargl:
In fact, I would be in favor of removing -Wall, as it is misnamed,
in favor of -Wlevel=0,1,2,3... -Wlevel=0 default warnings.
-Wlevel=1 is equivalent to -Wall. -Wlevel=2 is -Wall -Wextra
(and maybe -Wsurprising).
... and -Wlevel=3 could then be -Wkit
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 08:34:57PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 13:56, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> >
> > So I think that there is a strong argument for such an option in gfortran,
> > irrespective of whether there is for gcc and g++.
>
> Then -Wall should enable them for Fort
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 13:56, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
>
> On Jan 23 2019, Thomas König wrote:
> >
> >> Am 23.01.2019 um 12:36 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
> >>
> >> When there are new warnings that aren't enabled by -Wall -Wextra,
> >> there's probably a reason they aren't enabled by default.
> >are a h
On Jan 23 2019, Thomas König wrote:
Am 23.01.2019 um 12:36 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
When there are new warnings that aren't enabled by -Wall -Wextra,
there's probably a reason they aren't enabled by default.
are a higher form of life than mere Fortran
-Wconversion-extra is an example of suc
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for initiating this discussion. The responses are very useful.
That said, wouldn't a -ffix-everything option be more useful? :-)
Cheers
Paul
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 13:27, Thomas König wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 23.01.2019 um 12:36 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
> >
> > When there are ne
> Am 23.01.2019 um 12:36 schrieb Jonathan Wakely :
>
> When there are new warnings that aren't enabled by -Wall -Wextra,
> there's probably a reason they aren't enabled by default.
-Wconversion-extra is an example of such a warning.
It catches a very common error people make in Fortran, see
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 11:21, Franz Sirl wrote:
> The LLVM devs may hate it, but as maintainer of a multi-platform
> multi-compiler automated build framework I _love_ -Weverything. It's
> much easier to handle a compiler upgrade this way without missing any
> new warnings not enabled by -Wall -Wext
Am 2019-01-22 um 19:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:46, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hi,
What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
every warning there is?
I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 07:17, Thomas König wrote:
>
>
> > Am 23.01.2019 um 01:53 schrieb Martin Sebor :
>
> > I often wish GCC supported it -- not in the hopes of finding every
> > conceivable bug or transgression against known coding styles but
> > as a tool to discover warnings that have to be
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
We have that, gcc -Q --help=warning
Of course, for warnings which do require arguments (numerical, or
enumeration/string), one still needs to pick up his choices of those
arguments; no idea what -Weverything would do here, while some warnings
have differ
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:17:00AM +0100, Thomas König wrote:
>
>
> > Am 23.01.2019 um 01:53 schrieb Martin Sebor :
>
> > I often wish GCC supported it -- not in the hopes of finding every
> > conceivable bug or transgression against known coding styles but
> > as a tool to discover warnings tha
> Am 23.01.2019 um 01:53 schrieb Martin Sebor :
> I often wish GCC supported it -- not in the hopes of finding every
> conceivable bug or transgression against known coding styles but
> as a tool to discover warnings that have to be explicitly enabled
> either by using their own options or by s
On 1/22/19 11:34 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hi,
What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
every warning there is?
I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances, especially
to find potential bugs with warnings that people, for some reason
or other, found too noi
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:35 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
> every warning there is?
I tried to use -Weverything on a C++ project with about 350 source
files. It was a failed experiment. It created too much noise to be
useful.
Your
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:46, Marc Glisse wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
> > > every warning there is?
> > >
> > > I thin
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 18:46, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
> > every warning there is?
> >
> > I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances, especially
> > to find p
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hi,
What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
every warning there is?
I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances, especially
to find potential bugs with warnings that people, for some reason
or other, found too no
Hi,
What would people think about a -Weverything option which turns on
every warning there is?
I think that could be quite useful in some circumstances, especially
to find potential bugs with warnings that people, for some reason
or other, found too noisy for -Wextra.
The name could be somethin
22 matches
Mail list logo
