Re: Where are the specific WARNS=n defined?

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>>>> [...] gcc errors due to comparison of signed and unsigned values.
>>> It is best to fix the errors.
>> In my experience, that warning produces so many more false positives
>> than useful warnings that I normally shut it off entirely.
> and that one time that using it might have warned you about a serious
> vulnerability?

When was that?

Except for a few that also provoked, or would have provoked, the
warning about how a conditional's value is constant "due to limited
range of data type", I can't recall ever finding a bug that
-Wsign-compare warned about (or would have warned about).

Ever.

In anyone's code.

Yes, it's possible there is such an occasion lurking in my future.
It's also possible I've forgotten about one in the past.  But I judge
the expected cost of possibly having to track down such a bug directly
to be well below the expected cost (both immediate and in down-the-road
maintenance) of pervasive manual uglification of code to "fix"
non-errors.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B