https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>is too general and important a piece of information to be buried in the
>documentation of individual warning flags.
Yes because you should read the whole documentation rather than bits and pieces
of it. W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #2 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Saying "-Wall enables all the warnings that [...]" is inaccurate. Unless you
consider a very specific interpretation of "enables". Then it is ambiguous,
because there are other valid (and probably more intuit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #3 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Note that I would classify this as a request for improvement rather than a bug.
A manual is not a specification, it is something that should inform users, and
its contents can be better or worse in achieving
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #5 from Ricardo Abreu ---
> It has an unambiguous meaning:
>
> $ gcc -Q --help=warnings | fgrep maybe-uninit
> -Wmaybe-uninitialized [disabled]
> $ gcc -Q --help=warnings -Wall | fgrep maybe-uninit
> -Wmaybe-uninit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ricardo Abreu from comment #5)
> The sentence I quoted says -Wall enables a certain group of warnings, not
> flags. It goes on to characterize that group. It conveys information on its
> own, w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #7 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Yes, the very next paragraph directs to tens of other paragraphs that mention
other switches. One has to read them SFINAE mode to discover the special
meaning of the general text. That may be considered stric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #8 from Ricardo Abreu ---
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of admiration for GCC and the people behind!
It approaches perfection to a level that is very unusual in software.
Still, that does not amount to saying it is perfect. There
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ricardo Abreu from comment #7)
> Usually CLI switches aren't silently inoperative until you provide other
> switches.
Usually CLI applications don't have as many switches as GCC with as many
n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #10 from Ricardo Abreu ---
> Usually CLI applications don't have as many switches as GCC with as many
> non-trivial interactions between them.
True, but I am not sure I understand your point. To me that sounds like all the
more reas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=aef85e40e0c5e242f1a1883abc56159dcd90e7b0
commit r10-5913-gaef85e40e0c5e242f1a1883abc56159dcd90e7b0
Autho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8f84830a1bd275a62e226584b8ede40f0ce6760
commit r8-10133-gc8f84830a1bd275a62e226584b8ede40f0ce6760
Author: Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92757
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:337111a23499e597707f220662b2567e3f3bd6ea
commit r9-8402-g337111a23499e597707f220662b2567e3f3bd6ea
Author: Jonathan Wakely
15 matches
Mail list logo
