<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:17 AM, David Blaikie wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">(as I mentioned in my reply to Bob - many of the warnings in -Wall are<br>prone to the same criticism as -Wcovered-switch-default - they would<br>produce a bunch of false positives/violations in any existing code<br>base that hadn't been built with the warning all along (-Wswitch<br>itself, or -Wparentheses, etc). So how did they get into -Wall to<br>begin with? Is the right answer that -Wall is immutable as soon as it<br>shipped? I'd imagine that there are users who expect that to be true<br>(as you've mentioned) & also users who would be rather surprised by<br>this & expect the opposite)<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>I think the "right answer" is that there isn't one clear policy. Warnings are warnings. Some people like them, some people don't. Deciding what goes in -Wall, what's on by default, etc., all comes down to a nuanced discussion of how a *particular* warning impacts existing code, whether it has benefit, etc.</div></body></html>