On 2015-03-04 14:48, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 04/03/2015 13:17, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
:
I intend to file individual bugs to handle these remaining warnings,
so the net result will be a completely warning free build.
I also intend to file individual bugs on all the libraries that has
had warnings disabled. I expect the outcome of these bugs to be either:
A) The code modified so it does not trigger warnings, and the
warnings re-enabled, or
B) The warnings (or a subset of them) kept disabled, but a comment
added to the makefile describing why this is the proper course of
action.
Not all bugs might be worth fixing. For instance, the GCC warnings
type-limits, sign-compare, pointer-to-int-cast, conversion-null,
deprecated-declarations, clobbered, int-to-pointer-cast and
type-limits are all more or less benign, and is possibly the result
of a false positive.
Right, although for some of these it is important to double check.
I believe all warnings are important to check! Unfortunately, this has
not been done for a lot of warnings for a lot of time. :(
With this framework, it is simple to enable a single warning, recompile
and see the effect. Hopefully this lowers the threshold far enough so
that all warnings are given proper attention. The incremental build
functionality will come in very handy. Just by simply removing a warning
from the DISABLED_WARNINGS_<toolchain> on a library and running "make"
again, only the files affected will be recompiled.
Do you plan to paste in the warnings into the bugs that you will
create? That wold be useful as warnings are a moving target.
I can easily paste in what warning categories are disabled for a
specific library, yes.
However, if you are asking me to build each library, individually, with
warnings re-enabled, and pasting the output, I'd rather not. That would
be a lot of work, to detangle the output of each individual library.
/Magnus
