On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Tim Streater <t...@clothears.org.uk> wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2015 at 19:14, R.Smith <rsm...@rsweb.co.za> wrote:
> > On 2/12/2015 8:50 PM, Doug Currie wrote:
> >> It's easy enough to fix if you want 0 to be a valid value for
> TERM_VNULL:
> >>
> >> #if TERM_VNULL
> >> if( pTerm->wtFlags & TERM_VNULL ) continue;
> >> #endif
> >
> > Agreed, but how easy it is to fix a problem that is not a problem is
> > kind of irrelevant... We should write code to make systems execute
> > efficiently and correct, not to make compilers shush.
>
> If the statement will never be executed the compiler should simply
> optimise it away. No warning is necessary unless you turn on some flag that
> highlights such optimisations.
>
Warnings are always a tradeoff between pointing out what could be
mistakes/oversights versus senseless noise.
Most times I get the unreachable warning in my code is when I'm actively
coding, experimenting, moving things around, then when I'm done I silence
them one way or another.
Not 100% sure (I don't use Clang day to day), but I think I remember
reading that one way to silence this Clang warning is via extra parens, if
((bool-test)) { ... }. You're telling Clang "this one's not an oversight,
thank you". Small enough concession to having useful warnings in other
places, no? Certainly less ugly than using the preprocessor IMHO. My $0.02.
--DD
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
