Hello. On 21/12/16 18:02, Derek Foreman wrote: > On 21/12/16 10:45 AM, marcel-hollerb...@t-online.de wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 05:33:20PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> On 21/12/16 17:02, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: >>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:11 AM Stefan Schmidt <ste...@osg.samsung.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello >>>>> >>>>> On 20/12/16 17:36, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: >>>>>> I think your "How many real issues have you seen" was the same argument >>>>>> against running any static analysis a couple years ago; now we have >>>>> weekly >>>>>> reports for that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have seen bugs that resulted from illegal float comparison. The fact >>>>> that >>>>>> a warning may be a false positive in some or even most cases does not >>>>>> ensure that every warning is a false positive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that we are so pedantic about warnings for much more trivial >>>>> matters >>>>>> (e.g., -Wunused-parameter as part of -Wextra), it seems bizarre to me >>>>> that >>>>>> anyone would complain about enforcing valid comparisons for floats. >>>>> >>>>> Getting the code in shape for correct float comparisons is actually >>>>> something I would like to see. >>>>> >>>>> The real problem here is/was how this was handled. Forcing the compiler >>>>> flag to everyone's build is the problem. That and seeing Chris and >>>>> >>>> Cedric going crazy and doing nearly 100 patches in a short timeframe. >>>>> And even after all this my build was still noisy with all these warnings. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If people want to spend a few hours fixing hundreds of compile warnings >>>> before leaving on holiday then I think they should be commended, not held >>>> up as examples of what not to do. There's nothing wrong with creating a lot >>>> of patches; >>> >>> I'm not complaining about the amount of patches, I don't want this fixed >>> my one big commit either. And if this would have been it and all >>> warnings fixed I would not reverted anything. Given that Chris even >>> reverted patches because he did not compile test them before pushing I >>> really wonder what this rush is about. Is this a battle on getting >>> patches in before vacation, or what? >>> >>> it's not like anyone here is taking the time to review all >>>> these commits once they hit the repo. >>> >>> Just not true. I look over patches coming in over the commit mailing >>> list. And I know Tom also did. Others I can't say, but neither can you. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The reason we are so pedantic with the other warnings from the default >>>>> flags is that we want to have a clean build output to _actually spot >>>>> warnings from new code_ we are working on. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I reverted the patch putting it into the default compiler flags. Enable >>>>> it locally, get the the amount of warnings down to a sane amount and >>>>> I'm all for putting it in again. (tests and examples are also full of >>>>> it. Mentioning it here because I know how much people love to avoid >>>>> compiling those.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm supposed to enable a flag locally and fix hundreds of warnings by >>>> myself in code that I've never seen before? Or perhaps you think that >>>> others will collaborate and do this voluntarily if they have to manually >>>> enable a warning flag? Please be realistic. >>> >>> I am. You could have written a mail highlighting some examples why this >>> warnings is useful, you could have started a branch with it enabled and >>> worked together with Chris and Cedric on it to fix the warnings. Nothing >>> of this happened. Out of the blue this warning was enabled and a rush of >>> patches came in. You should not be surprised that people bring this up. > > Are you asking for an explanation of why floating point comparison with > == in C is bad? This is axiomatic and hardly needs discussion in this > forum.
I will stop right here. I'm well aware that my English skills a far from a native level, but it still puzzles me how you could read this out of what I wrote. Different strategies of handling this versus a non-understanding of the problem. Thanks for asking if I really understood the problem. You are on vacation, I'm tired of this , so whatever. regards Stefan Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
