Re: Announce: gcc bogus warning repository

Jeff Garzik
2006-10-01T18:45:34Z

Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> The downsides are that it muckies up the source a little and introduces a
>>> very small risk that real use-uninitialised bugs will be hidden. But I
>>> believe the benefit outweighs those disadvantages.
>> How about just marking the ones I've already done in #gccbug?
>>
>> If I'm taking the time to audit the code, and separate out bogosities
>> from real bugs, it would be nice not to see that effort wasted.
>
> There was a long thread on this, it's not about anyone not reviewing the
> code properly when the warning is first silenced. It's that future
> changes might create new problems that are also silenced. I don't think
> it's a huge concern, especially since there's was a config option to
> turn the warning backs on.

That doesn't address my question at all.

If there is no difference between real non-init bugs and bogus warnings,
then a config option doesn't make any difference at all, does it? Real
bugs are still hidden either way: if the warnings are turned on, the
bugs are lost in the noise. if the warnings are turned off, the bugs
are completely hidden.

Jeff