🚀 go-pugleaf

Eric Sosman wrote:

> Fred Ma wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the tip about -Wall.  I never realized I had so much
> > problem with my code until I turned it on.  I thought I was being
> > high and mighty righteous-like with -pedantic, but it looks like
> > there is a higher righteousness.  Lots of good reading, too, of
> > the man page.
>
>     Try using both -W and -Wall; the latter's name suggests
> that it's enabling "all" warnings, but that's not so.
>
>     Also, -O2 (or higher) in conjunction with these can
> produce warnings that will help locate uses of uninitialized
> variables.
>
>     For code that can tolerate it (some perfectly good code
> cannot), consider adding -ansi.
>
> --
> Eric.Sosman@sun.com

Thanks, again, all.  I in for a bit of man page
reading and code cleaning.

Fred


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Should C/C++ compilers be smart enough to catch this???
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 23:23:26 GMT
> From: "KJK::Hyperion"
> Organization: [Infostrada]
> Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,gnu.gcc.help
> References: <3E8C8C4F.ABC60B0F@doe.carleton.ca>
>
> > Shouldn't compilers be smart enough to not create code that corrupts
> > when it is pretty straighforward to realize that (1) there is an
> > obvious discrepancy, for which a warning can easily be issued,
>
> did you try the -W -Wall options? AFAIR, no return statement in a non-
> void function *is* a candidate for a warning (e.g. the Borland compiler
> is especially smart to catch such execution path-related bugs), altough
> GCC by default is somewhat quiet
>