4 ms·
that's a terrible excuse for not enabling them in -Wall. Is there a -Wreally-all?
by craftyguy 9y ago
that's a terrible excuse for not enabling them in -Wall. Is there a -Wreally-all?
- loeg 9y agoClang has -Weverything. GCC doesn't: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66293 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66293
- jordigh 9y agoIt looks like -Weverything for gcc would make a lot of code not compile (along with -Werror). For example, it would include -Weffc++, right? Those are warnings if your code just doesn't obey one guy's now-outdated opinions of what C++ should look like. That's what this says at the bottom: https://github.com/Tuplanolla/gcc-weverything https://github.com/Tuplanolla/gcc-weverything
- jcelerier 9y ago> For example, it would include -Weffc++, right? Maybe, but where's the problem ? Just add -Wno-effc++ afterwards.
- loeg 9y agoYes, -Weverything + -Werror is often a silly combination. That isn't a GCC-specific problem, though. Clang with both flags will fail to compile quite a lot of code, too. As the other reply points out, you can just use -Wno-effc++ on top of -Weverything. You could also avoid that particular problem by not using C++ ;-).
- kllrnohj 9y agoNote that Clang recommends you don't use -Weverything because it contains warnings that are in development or have a known high false-positive rate.
- klodolph 9y agoThe actual reason why -Wall doesn't include more warnings is because too many people rely on the fact that -Wall includes warnings for questionable code that is easy to avoid. It's a bad name, but it's not being changed any time soon.