3 ms·

> At least in compilers like gcc, optimization needs to be enabled to get sane warnings emitted by the compiler, so some people are indeed being forced to pass

> At least in compilers like gcc, optimization needs to be enabled to get sane warnings emitted by the compiler, so some people are indeed being forced to pass in -O2 to get sane build warnings for projects. That's a fair point and it irritates me too. But you're not forced to run -O2 in production if you don't want to. I've had projects where we compile with multiple compilers and different settings -- including different libcs -- just to get all the warnings, while we ship non-optimized or minimally optimized debug builds to the customer..

bcrl 5y ago
You can't turn off -O2 in some projects. The Linux kernel has plenty of code that requires optimization to be on to build succesfully -- look at things like BUILD_BUG_ON(). And it's projects like the Linux kernel that have had security issues caused by overzealous compiler optimizations. Getting blindsighted silently by compilers has already proven that the current approach towards Undefined Behaviour by compiler writers is not working.