3 ms·

Erm, wut? Not really. If there is a warning, its there for a reason. Fix that.

• sfk 17y ago
  As everyone who has written a C program of sufficient complexity knows, these warnings are not always correct. Google for "spurious warnings uninitialized", e.g: http://kerneltrap.org/node/6591 http://kerneltrap.org/node/6591 An unrelated example where gcc (and icc) emit needless warnings about integer types is this: int x = foo(); unsigned y = (x == 0); Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of cranking up the warning levels, but there is a reason why not everything is included in -Wall (yes, "uninitialized" is included, I know).
  • torpor 17y ago
    As a professional C coder for 20+ years, with well over a million lines of code under my belt, I can tell you that anyone that is ignoring warnings because of a buggy compiler is using the wrong compiler and should fix that immediately. I work on SIL-4 rated systems for life-protection applications. Absolutely ZERO TOLERANCE for warnings is a requirement in this job, and every single time it has been addressed, the warning gave us a clue how to fix something. Whether it was the code that needed fixing, or the compiler - either way, the alert is there. Ignore at your own peril.