Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:27:08 -0500
Message-Id: <199901061827.NAA22251@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE33CA3A2@probe-2.Acclaim-Euro.net>
	(message from Shawn Hargreaves on Wed, 6 Jan 1999 15:44:08 -0000)
Subject: Re: Announce: Allegro 3.1
References:  <8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE33CA3A2 AT probe-2 DOT Acclaim-Euro DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


> You are probably right about that, but it goes against the grain for
> me to just ignore these warnings.

Me too, but I recognize two cases: me (and other developers) want the
maximum amount of paranoia.  This has been quite helpful for libc.
Regular users want things to "just work" and quickly get confused when
they see unexpected messages.

> Obviously it cannot :-) That is why I think these new warnings should 
> not be enabled by default: it is easy for users of that specific 
> compiler to enable them by using an extra switch, but impossible for 
> them to be turned off by the authors of code that must support 
> multiple compiler versions...

How will users know to enable these new warnings, then?  They won't
know to check the manual for new options with each release, and they
probably think their code is OK anyway, since they weren't getting
warnings before...

Even if there were levels, I'd expect "-Wall" to enable *all* warnings
(it doesn't at the moment, which bugs me, but that's a different
story).