https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> > Moving warnings into the analyzer and scaling it up to be able to run by
> > default, during development,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #8 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> Moving warnings into the analyzer and scaling it up to be able to run by
> default, during development, sounds like a good long-term plan. Until that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Moving warnings into the analyzer and scaling it up to be able to run by
default, during development, sounds like a good long-term plan. Until that
happens, rather than gratuitously removing warnings that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #6 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5)
> It would be useful to separate these warnings into multiple levels: level 1
> for invalid code, and higher levels for suspicious (or pointless) code,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It would be useful to separate these warnings into multiple levels: level 1 for
invalid code, and higher levels for suspicious (or pointless) code, similarly
to -Wformat-overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
Siddhesh Poyarekar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wstringop-overread should |-Wstringop-overread should
