3 ms·

Kind of, yes, but it's usually warning us about things that were actual bugs and reliance on unspecified/underspecified behavior that might be changing with new

• simias 6y ago
  Not really in my experience. I maintain some relatively old codebases and the most common warnings for old code with newer GCC generally are: - Warnings recommending the use of parens in code like `if (a || b && c)`. The original code is (probably) not broken, it's just that GCC thinks that it's error-prone to write conditionals that way (I agree). There's also a similar warning for code like `while (a = foo())` where it asks you to add parens to make sure that you didn't use = instead of == by mistake. - Warnings for unmarked fall-throughs in `switch`. Again, not broken if the fall-through was intentional. That's a fairly new warning, so a lot of all code will trigger it. - Warnings for some const to non-const pointer conversions (in particular for literal strings in C++). There you could argue that the original code is bogus but as long as the pointer is not written to it's fine. Const-correctness wasn't really a thing in C and C++ for a long time, a lot of legacy code plays fast and loose with const qualifiers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the code is broken. - Warnings about unused variables, in particular variables being written to but not read. As compiler get smarter they tend to catch more of those.