On Oct 31, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Paul Hargrove <email@example.com> wrote:Ralph,I don't think I missed the point about the origin of the concern - we just have different view points.Jeff indicated that he previously thought the "odd" practice shown in the example was uncommon until he learned is was common in codes at Sandia. Perhaps you and I have interpreted the "impact" differently:+ From your responses I gather you are concerned only (or primarily) w/ folks at Sandia who work on codes that have the "odd" behavior.Sigh...no, that isn't accurate. I was only trying to say that the concern was raised from that corner for those reasons. And I don't think they would consider a code that meets standards as being "odd".
+ On the other hand, I took the Sandia codes as an "existence proof" showing that "really smart people" can still write questionable code at times. So, I think there could be a non-trivial number of codes developed outside of Sandia that would start generating warnings (possibly MANY of them).Could be - but again, not many are likely to be using clang, and so they won't be affected by this change.I will now crawl back under my rock - I honestly couldn't care less about this, but was trying to explain the concern voiced on the telecon as that person is way too busy for this debate.