On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:35:49 +1100 Brett Nash <n...@nash.id.au> said:
> > > > > > I don't understand why raster is so reluctant in having them. Especially > > > if we enable them only during a development cycle, and not in a release. > > > > Indeed... several projects I work with enable tons of -W when > > configured with --enable-maintainer-mode (even -Werror). I don't see a > > point against doing this. > > There are a few points. First if you are on a different arch to the > maintainers suddenly you can find yourself in warning hell. Similarly > different compiler versions have the same effect[1]. > > -Werror is even worse for this (especially when you are adding a new > feature and you know what/why a warning is but you don't want to fix it > for some reason). As a person who always uses a 64bit machine + more > warnings the most, adding a -Werror is a nightmare for me. > > Third reason is it messes with peoples existing warning flags. For > instance I use[2][3]: > -Wall -Wextra -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-parameter > A -Wall at the end resets my other flags, which is really annoying. > > However the main problem is the simple philosophical one. Don't tell > people how to code. Don't tell them what editor, don't tell them what > compiler, don't tell them what architecture to use, don't tell them what > C flags. > > Having said that: People with no CFLAGS should probably be given a > default set, and suggestions of CFLAGS to use is a good idea. agreed. if you are an efl developer - you should PROBABLY have a set of warning flags on by default during development (unless as you say - you are doing something new and are not interested in fixing every little thing now, just trying to bootstrap it and get it up at all). i don't understand when everyone is obsessed by making it either default OR a --enable-warnings option when it is simpler and easier to just set CFLAGS. if you have to tell someone of a configure option and how to use it - you also have to spend the same effort to tell them of how to set CFLAGS - and they make the the same effort (actually less as they just set their cflags in 1 place for all their builds, but a --enable option has to be passed every time they autogen/configure so cflags is in fact a much better solution). the only thing that makes sense is having them always on in all projects by default. but then as brett says - it messes with existing warning flags in CFLAGS which is where they should go etc. etc. etc. > Regards, > nash > > > > [1] I was the first in my company to upgrade to gcc 4 at the time with > 'mandatory' CFLAGS, and found myself in hundreds of warnings when the > previous version was warning free. > > [2] I'll probably be adding void arithmetic to this soon. > > [3] I used to have more. I turned some off due to too many warnings > elsewhere. > -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
