<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On Nov 12, 2013, at 22:46 , Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">The important question is what's the timing difference between: -Wuninitialized -Wyour-new-warning and just -Wuninitialized<br><br>That way you won't be comparing the timing of CFG building and no CFG building, but CFG building with your warning and CFG building without your warning.</div></div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Right. If this warning doesn't add measurable compile time in a build that's already constructing CFGs, then that's OK, but it needs to be off by default, like the other CFG-based warnings.</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote></div><br><div>…which raises the point: should we have a -Wflow-sensitive-analysis for “all current and future CFG-based checks”? I have the usual discoverability concerns, but having a warning flag that means “warnings that would be on by default if we could get a CFG for free” seems like a way to ameliorate that issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Jordan</div></body></html>