<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 12:12 PM, Matthieu Monrocq 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; ">I don't quite see the need to move a warning *away* from -Wall.<br><br>I understand that fixing large code bases is unpractical, I have some such medium large (and oldish) code bases to deal with. However simply tuning the Makefile (-Wno-covered-switch-default) is so simple that I don't quite understand the reluctance here.<br><br>It may require a (slight) change of mentality, but the obvious advantage of blacklisting some warnings, is that at least you make explicit what is not checked.<br><br>I don't quite see why Open Source projects would reject a patch to add a few -Wno-XXXX to their makefiles. Certainly this seems trivial and harmless.<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Fair points. I'm certainly willing to discuss this further, but I would like some more data points/voices in this discussion.</div></body></html>