- To: noloader@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: GCC warning options for numerical programs
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:15:46 +0100
- Cc: GCC Users List <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- In-reply-to: <CAH8yC8=fFz5aCzK0aM49Kz2G6RhW7pBXQ=OtCq2eUnpe8Hzegw@mail.gmail.com>
On 23 April 2012 05:20, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/GCC-warning-options-for-numerical-programs.html
> recommends the following:
>
> gcc -ansi -pedantic -Werror -Wall -W
> -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes
> -Wconversion -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith
> -Wcast-qual -Wcast-align
> -Wwrite-strings -Wnested-externs
> -fshort-enums -fno-common -Dinline= -g -O2
>
> Is it possible to efficiently tell which of the above options are not
> included with -Wall -Wextra?
There are only nine of them, look them up in the manual and see if it
says "This option is enabled by -Wall"
> Wouldn't -Weverything be easier on folks who really want to know about
> all errata? Its a helpful Clang switch.
The switches above are not all warnings, a -Weverything would turn on
a lot more and increase the number of false positives.
[Linux C Programming]
[Linux Kernel]
[eCos]
[Fedora Development]
[Fedora Announce]
[Autoconf]
[The DWARVES Debugging Tools]
[Yosemite Campsites]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux GCC]