Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Haney <address@hidden> writes:

    Scott> It is next to impossible for folks working with compilers
    Scott> who aren't similarly enthusiastic in the warning department
    Scott> to guard against this.  If we try to enforce this policy,
    Scott> it will put a strain on the people compiling with GCC to
    Scott> reorder and add stuff. Recognizing that warning-free
    Scott> compilation is a good thing, do we want to take on this
    Scott> burden?

That's an intelligent question.  There is definitely a cost here.

However, we shouldn't regard G++ as particularly more malleable than
other compilers.  I'm all for fixing outright bugs, but this is a
warning that a lot of G++ users like.  Ideally, we'd have a way to
turn on and off particular warnings, and then we could perhaps decide
that for POOMA we didn't care about this one.

I guess I'd be inclined to suggest that we try to get things in the
"right" order, and that we let Jeffrey fix these things up as he finds
them.

Jeffrey, what level of warnings are you using?  Are you using -W
-Wall?  That might be a little aggressive.

--
Mark Mitchell                   address@hidden
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com