3 ms·

I completely disagree. It's true that some of the warnings it enables aren't terribly useful, but being able to enable all warnings is very helpful instead of h

I completely disagree. It's true that some of the warnings it enables aren't terribly useful, but being able to enable all warnings is very helpful instead of having to manually list ~40 flags. Additionally, -Wpadded and the like are actually helpful for optimizations. Plus, writing code (in C, I cannot speak for Cxx) which results in no warning output from `-Weverything` is actually not that difficult to do, and generally the result is that you've written more robust code in the process. A lot of projects are now trying to move to compile with `-Weverything` and not disable any warnings, and I personally think it's a great move.

jeorgun 11y ago
For C, I'd agree that it's useful. The flags I listed have issues specifically for C++. -Wc++98-compat, on a C++11 or C++14 project, is about as helpful as you'd expect. -Wpadded is triggered pretty reliably by subclassess. And so forth. Of course it is possible to specifically disable useless warnings, but in my experience it's just as easy to add a reasonable selection of flags (say, -Wall -Wextra -Wold-style-cast -Wconversion -Wsign-conversion) than to start with -Weverything and work backwards. Still, it has been some time since I've tried using it; maybe I ought to give it another chance.
- halosghost 11y ago
  I do not personally code in Cxx (which is why I refrained from making judgements about `-Weverything`'s use for it earlier). But, at least for C, almost all the warnings you get are helpful (with very few exceptions). At most, I end up disabling two or three warnings from `-Weverything` on my projects. And, personally, I prefer to use pragmas inside the code rather than flags to disable them; that way, I can explicitly declare in my code that I have intentionally done something which would raise a warning (as close to the actual something as possible rather than generally disabling it). The result is that I still get the warnings for wherever I did not intentionally invoke these actions and still get all the other warnings that I should pay attention to for best practices. Though I would personally argue for most people (particularly new C coders) using `-Weverything` wherever possible, if you see fit not to, that's your choice :)
- cpeterso 11y ago
  Here's a detailed explanation of -Weverything from a clang developer. He says -Weverything is intended for clang developers' own testing. He recommends using -Wall -Wextra plus any individual warnings you may want. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/124574 http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/124574 clang does not document its warning flags like gcc does, but a long (but now incomplete) list is available here: http://fuckingclangwarnings.com/ http://fuckingclangwarnings.com/
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
The -Wmaybe-uninitialized flag can produce loads of false positives, and may not be very useful (depending on your code). The really interesting part is that a compiler that gives 100% correct warnings about using uninitialized variables can be proven to be able to solve the halting problem, thus it cannot exist.
- emn13 11y ago
  Then again, if you construct your code such that determining whether a variable is initialized requires solving the halting problem, somebody should probably take your keyboard away :-). In practice, if your initialization isn't sufficiently transparent, you're just busy making bugs.

jeorgun 11y ago

For C, I'd agree that it's useful. The flags I listed have issues specifically for C++. -Wc++98-compat, on a C++11 or C++14 project, is about as helpful as you'd expect. -Wpadded is triggered pretty reliably by subclassess. And so forth. Of course it is possible to specifically disable useless warnings, but in my experience it's just as easy to add a reasonable selection of flags (say, -Wall -Wextra -Wold-style-cast -Wconversion -Wsign-conversion) than to start with -Weverything and work backwards. Still, it has been some time since I've tried using it; maybe I ought to give it another chance.

halosghost 11y ago
I do not personally code in Cxx (which is why I refrained from making judgements about `-Weverything`'s use for it earlier). But, at least for C, almost all the warnings you get are helpful (with very few exceptions). At most, I end up disabling two or three warnings from `-Weverything` on my projects. And, personally, I prefer to use pragmas inside the code rather than flags to disable them; that way, I can explicitly declare in my code that I have intentionally done something which would raise a warning (as close to the actual something as possible rather than generally disabling it). The result is that I still get the warnings for wherever I did not intentionally invoke these actions and still get all the other warnings that I should pay attention to for best practices. Though I would personally argue for most people (particularly new C coders) using `-Weverything` wherever possible, if you see fit not to, that's your choice :)
cpeterso 11y ago
Here's a detailed explanation of -Weverything from a clang developer. He says -Weverything is intended for clang developers' own testing. He recommends using -Wall -Wextra plus any individual warnings you may want. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/124574 http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/124574 clang does not document its warning flags like gcc does, but a long (but now incomplete) list is available here: http://fuckingclangwarnings.com/ http://fuckingclangwarnings.com/

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

The -Wmaybe-uninitialized flag can produce loads of false positives, and may not be very useful (depending on your code). The really interesting part is that a compiler that gives 100% correct warnings about using uninitialized variables can be proven to be able to solve the halting problem, thus it cannot exist.

emn13 11y ago
Then again, if you construct your code such that determining whether a variable is initialized requires solving the halting problem, somebody should probably take your keyboard away :-). In practice, if your initialization isn't sufficiently transparent, you're just busy making bugs.