[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5566BBDC.5080805@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:55:24 +0200
From: Alex Dowad <alexinbeijing@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: More on warning cleanup
On 28/05/15 07:08, Rich Felker wrote:
> Since compilers differ in what warnings they include in -Wall, I'd
> like to remove -Wall (followed by a bunch of -Wno-*) from musl's
> --enable-warnings and instead individually turn on the warnings we
> want. A few weeks ago I worked those out on #musl (based on the GCC
> manual's documentation of -Wall and other options) and here's what I
> came up with:
>
> -Waddress
> -Warray-bounds
> -Wchar-subscripts
> -Wreturn-type
> -Wsequence-point
> -Wstrict-aliasing
> -Wstrict-overflow
> -Wunused-function
> -Wunused-variable
> -Wunused-label
>
> This list does not include the ones we already have as errors because
> they only trigger on invalid C:
>
> -Werror=implicit-function-declaration
> -Werror=implicit-int
> -Werror=pointer-sign
> -Werror=pointer-arith
>
> Are these any other warnings we should enable?
Are you interested in warnings provided by clang, but not by gcc? I've
noticed that there are a few things in musl which clang warns about, but
gcc doesn't; such as expressions where operator precedence might be
confusing to some, and indexing into strings using + (it wants you to
use [] instead).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
