Sorry, I feel like I have to make a stand here. This whole
story (including earlier patches) is getting incredibly
ridiculous. There are nice warning options in todays
compilers, but if a warning option sucks and makes us
write worse code, then we shouldn't use it. I've wasted
so much time discussing such options, that I could have
spend reviewing and fixing actual bugs instead. IMHO,
some warning options just make things worse.If we feel like we need to write /* zero initialized */
because we do that implicitly and rely on that, while the
language actually offers a nice and clean way to do that
explicitly, then we failed, desperately. If we want a nice
Clang experience, please let's just disable that ridiculous
warning.Sounds reasonable. These warnings were more ridiculous than I expected.
Sorry, I didn't mean all the warning options. My rant was only
about -Wmissing-field-initializers, it's just not useful with
Clang, IMHO.
The other options seem reasonable. Format, enum, they actually
spotted regressions in the code, so I'd agree to enable them.
To view, visit change 36946. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.