Hi Magnus,
On 9/5/2013 2:01 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
Hi Joe,
First of all, I think what you're doing is a great job, and I'm all in
favor of enabling more warnings!
Thanks; I'm all for more warnings too :-)
DISABLE_WARNINGS:=-Xlint:all,-deprecation,-unchecked,-rawtypes,-cast,-serial,-dep-ann,-static,-fallthrough,-try,-varargs,-empty,-finally
+JAVAC_WARNINGS:=-Xlint:-unchecked,-deprecation,-overrides,auxiliaryclass,classfile,dep-ann,divzero,empty,try,varargs
-Werror
Would you mind elaborating a bit on the choice to remove the "all" and
replace it with a specified list of warnings? From my point of view,
having "all" turned on, and specific warnings turned off seems like an
approach that minimizes the risk that someone inadvertently adds code
that will cause an warning of a type that is currently not
specifically listed.
My longer term goal is to build the JDK sources successfully under
-Xlint:all. Given how the build currently works, it is easier to expand
the set of warnings by clearing a category of error at a time (rather
than completely cleaning, say, a package of code).
Once the "foo" category of warnings are resolved, I think it is a bit
clearer to add "foo," to the list of enabled lint warnings rather than
to remove "-foo,".
However, I'm less concerned with how the various Xlint checks are
enabled compared to getting them enabled.
Thanks,
-Joe
If having "all" turned on results in warnings that breaks the build
due to -Werror, these warnings should be explicitely disabled in the
Xlint options as well.
Is it the case that Xlint:all is a misnomer, just like the GCC -Wall,
which does in fact not at all turn on all warnings? According to the
documentation, Xlint:all turns on all "recommended" warnings, but I
can't find any specification of what those "recommended" warnings are.
But even if this is the case, it would not hurt to keep the "all" and
add the additional warnings that we want enabled, would it?
/Magnus
