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

On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 12:08 PM Sam James via Gcc <[email protected]> wrote:

> Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Joseph Myers <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> The point is that if using -Wextra, you should expect some warnings
> >> that are "hard to avoid ... no simple way to modify the code to
> >> suppress the warning" (whereas such warnings are outside the
> >> documented scope of -Wall).
> >
> > Yes, I agree.
> >
> > I'm just saying that I think that, beyond just moving into -Wextra, the
> > wording needs to be made less certain ("there is" -> "there may be" or
> > so).
>
> So, something like:
> 1) move to -Wextra;
> 2) change phrasing;
>

Part of this should be to suggest -fdiagnostics-show-context=N.


> 3) add diagnostic group -Wmiddle-end (name pending);
>

This seems too broad a category; let's focus on the most common problems,
namely the ones supported by -fdiagnostics-show-context=N.  Maybe
-Wrange-flow or something like that?

I also notice that pass_warn_access (-Wstringop-overflow) runs multiple
times in passes.def; maybe the early run could stay in -Wall?  Maybe even
adjust all of the offending warnings to run before jump threading in -Wall
and also optionally later?

4) drop from -Wextra now you can conveniently use them via the group.
>
> then?
>