Re: -W* rules for engagement?

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Mark Kettenis wrote:

> Hmm, how important is -Wpointer-arith?  It generates a lot of warnings
> from code in <string.h> on Linux and the Hurd, due to a bug in gcc
> 2.95.  For now I've just disabled it in my local CVS tree.

I don't see that here :-(  It was added because, at the time, I found it
very easy to get past GCC.

>    with a few additional key warnings such as -Wuninitialized
>    -Wmissing-prototypes (any others?) and then try to get these down to
>    zero so that -Werror can be used on this contracted list.  Beyond that,
>    people, can pursue things at their leisure.
> 
>    How to approach this? I'm easy.  I am wary of fix warning a-thons and
>    the like.  Often fixing a warning involves a careful re-examination of
>    the code.  If someone wants to take it on, I'm again easy.
> 
> Enabling additional warnings one by one, giving people a few weeks to
> recover and fix things, is probably the best idea.  The majority of
> those won't really involve a lot of re-examination of code.  And the
> cases where it does, that code will probably benefit from a
> re-examination, at least if people will review, update and add
> comments to that code.

I'm going to add -Wuninitialized next (I just tripped up on a bug it
would have caught :-( :-).

-Wmissing-prototypes is interesting - people are so good at adding ISO-C
prototypes from -Wimplicit that it can almost be avoided! :-)

	Andrew