Hi Bruno, FWIW I’d prefer more “neutral” wording, which couldn’t be interpreted as discouraging use of static analysis tools, and at the same time try to discuss trade-offs rather than taste:
Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> writes:
> --- doc/standards.texi.orig Wed Sep 1 01:25:45 2010
> +++ doc/standards.texi Wed Sep 1 01:24:09 2010
[...]
> +...@pindex clang
> +...@pindex lint
> +Don't make the program ugly just to placate warnings from tools other
> +than those that you use on a daily basis. Extra GCC warnings options,
> +...@code{clang}'s static analysis facilities, and code style checkers like
> +...@code{lint} can be valuable tools.
(Shouldn’t it refer to Splint since I think the historical Lint isn’t
free?)
> But if you try to placate too many
> +warnings, the readability of the code will deteriorate.
What about something like this?
However, placating warnings emitted by such tools should not be done
at the expense of readability and maintainability.
> For example,
> +you don't need to get rid of warnings produced by @samp{gcc -Wundef} or
> +...@samp{gcc -Wconversion} because these warnings rarely point to bugs.
And:
For example, it may sometimes be useless to get rid of warnings [...]
because these warnings are rather stylistic and rarely point to bugs.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
pgpqx1uSbhZXX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
