Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:07:49 +0200: > On 12.08.2015 00:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > >>> We have had problems with both styles in the past, so neither is immune > >>> to bugs. I prefer the explicit type as it is easier to grep. > >> The explicit type form is more accident-prone than the variable form > >> because any change requires two modifications in the same statement > >> instead of one. > > Why doesn't the compiler or buildbot catch accidents? > > I can't imagine a way for the compiler to emit warnings for such > constructs without getting a far too large percentage of false > positives. It's perfectly valid, and in many cases required by some > object-like architecture, to allocate a buffer that has a different size > than the one implied by the pointer that stores the return value. This > is C, after all. >
Okay, so from the compiler authors' perspective, "allocation size mismatches pointed-to-object size" warnings should not be on by default. Fair enough. But from our perspective as Subversion maintainers, we never *intentionally* allocate a buffer smaller than the pointed-to object, so the warnings would be useful to us. We should therefore opt-in to them. (via compiler flags, or have buildbot run static analysis, or…) Cheers, Daniel > -- Brane
