Re: Is it time to take the middle-end stringop/array warnings out of -Wall?

Joseph Myers <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 20 May 2026, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
>> I'm OK with that that though moving the diagnostics earlier might be another
>> option.  But once they are no longer in -Wall I fear nobody will enable them
>> and so we can as well eliminate the then unused (and actually unmaintained
>> for large parts) code ...
>
> You could put them in -Wextra.  -Wall is supposed to be "all the
> warnings about constructions that some users consider questionable,
> and that are easy to avoid (or modify to prevent the warning), even in
> conjunction with macros", while -Wextra includes some warnings for
> "constructions that are necessary or hard to avoid in some cases, and
> there is no simple way to modify the code to suppress the warning"
> (which seems like a reasonable match for the issues with false
> positives for these warnings).

A lot of people use -Wextra, so moving the warning into -Wextra alone
would have insufficient effect IMO.

Even if they do get moved into -Wextra, they should have output that
makes it clearer that the error may be (and perhaps even is likely to
be) a false positive.

As Jonathan said, saying there "is" an overflow is a hefty statement.

IMO, +1 on the original suggestion, though.  These being in -Wall, and
them being worded in such a strong manner, makes it so that this is a
common cause of confusion.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEKBAEWCgCyFiEE/uKz0RP8AKMWLWBhUsKUMB6ixJMFAmoN5ssbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRGRUUyQjNEMTEzRkMwMEEzMTYyRDYw
NjE1MkMyOTQzMDFFQTJDNDkzGBxhYXJzZW5vdmljQGJheWxpYnJlLmNvbQAKCRBS
wpQwHqLEk1RWAQCI+cniOmRscFkHM6RVq96V5jqx/8BdZjfPO1m3F1126gEA5Jkm
hiJIHfS62neHVchW1xS2KWG6bmTwYYvHyU7a+QQ=
=F1JW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----