John, I think that Jenkins only looks at the compiler exit code. I do not think that we have instructed the compiler to treat warnings as errors... yet.
Pat > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Light, John J > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:07 AM > To: Jon A. Cruz; Keane, Erich > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] warnings! > > I wasn't complaining about the new warning level. I was pointing out the > irony > that we hadn't eliminated the warnings that appeared BEFORE we changed the > warning level. > > I'm surprised Jenkins doesn't complain about warnings. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon A. Cruz [mailto:jonc at osg.samsung.com] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:35 PM > To: Keane, Erich; Light, John J > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] warnings! > > FYI, the increased warnings had already flagged at least one bug where network > send errors were being missed due to a check that looked at a signed value > being less than zero. Catching such a bug in code review that should have been > flagged by the compiler was the reason the lack of -Wextra was noticed in the > first place. > > First cleanups fixed Ubuntu 14.04 from 9.0k warnings down to 0.6k warnings. > Similar passes for 12.04 will follow, but as it stands builds were only seeing > about 2k warnings. > > The velocity on warning cleanup should fairly quickly get to the point again > where it is easy to spot significant issues as (or before) they are > introduced. > > > On 08/03/2015 03:00 PM, Keane, Erich wrote: > > As far as the 'sea of non-critical warnings', you aren't wrong. > > However, NOW is sorta the best time to do this, since we are between > > releases, and it gives us as much time as possible to fix them. All > > patches to fix warnings are looked on quite favorably :) > > > > -Erich > > > > > > On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 21:55 +0000, Light, John J wrote: > >> I?ve noticed a great increase in the number of warnings during build. > >> There have been more warnings in recently merged code, but this > >> lastest increase seems to be the result of ratcheting up the warning > >> threshold. > >> > >> > >> > >> I suspect we are well into the territory where critical warnings > >> won?t be seen because they will be lost in a sea of non-critical warnings. > >> > >> > >> > >> Leaving that aside, I have a coding question in this new regime. > >> > >> > >> > >> A C file I am modifying but didn?t write has the following code: > >> > >> > >> > >> OCPersistentStorage ps = {}; > >> > >> ps.open = client_fopen; > >> > >> ps.read = fread; > >> > >> ps.write = fwrite; > >> > >> ps.close = fclose; > >> > >> ps.unlink = unlink; > >> > >> > >> > >> This gets a warning about each line, like: > >> > >> > >> > >> warning: missing initializer for member > >> 'OCPersistentStorage::open' > >> > >> > >> > >> I can eliminate the warnings by coding it thus: > >> > >> > >> > >> OCPersistentStorage ps = { client_fopen, fread, fwrite, fclose, > >> unlink }; > >> > >> OCRegisterPersistentStorageHandler(&ps); > >> > >> > >> > >> But this seems more fragile since the ordering matters. > >> > >> > >> > >> Is there a C initialization method I?m missing? > >> > >> > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> iotivity-dev mailing list > >> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > >> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > iotivity-dev mailing list > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > > > -- > Jon A. Cruz - Senior Open Source Developer Samsung Open Source Group > jonc at osg.samsung.com > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
