On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not against it. > > Locally I've occasionally done the static_cast<void*> (something_p) and > that shuts up the gcc %p warning. (And in the process have found > interesting things like enum cases being ignored, etc.). > > One negative of all that IMHO is that it adds clutter, but if it helps us > find real warnings, my vote would be to do it. > Just an FYI in case people missed it, I pushed the change to quiet up that warning. There are still a few other warnings that are floating around, but, it is a much more happy build now. This goes back to my original question of, do we want to add -Werror= options for the warnings that have been cleaned up to prevent regressing on those specifically? > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yes, we might consider this is the GCC warning that Steve mentions below >>> is able to be disabled for GCC builds. >>> >>> The one problem is the variety of warnings that are enabled by default >>> on different systems. GCC enables different things by default, and so does >>> clang. As the compilers change it will be hard for other people on other >>> systems to keep up. Also, no changes should ever be reverted because of >>> compiler warnings, people would need to fix them on the system on which >>> they are failing due to the compiler differences... >>> >>> So currently, unless GCC can disable the lame "%p" warning when using >>> anything but a "void *", this is a non-starter. >> >> >> I realise that this is probably an exercise in futility, but, if I were >> to spend the time to add the appropriate casts for the pointer conversions >> (which consequentially would quiet up some of the static analyzer >> warnings!), would there be any objections to that? >> >> Having slowly cleaned up some of the warnings, it seems that there are >> actual minor things floating about that we were missing. >> >> >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Steve Pucci <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > +1 >>> > >>> > On Linux/gcc, the great majority of warnings is for a warning about >>> using %p in a printf with a void* argument, which IMHO is a bogus warning >>> that only gcc emits, and AFAICT can't be disabled without disabling the >>> other far-more-useful printf warnings. I wound up writing a script to >>> filter these out from my build logs rather than try to fix them all. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > As the LLDB build currently exists, there are a large number of >>> warnings which clutter the build. This is even worse on Linux when >>> building with gcc. >>> > >>> > I was wondering if there would be any objection to forcing errors on >>> warnings as they as they get cleaned up. This requires that the compiler >>> support marking certain warnings a errors (i.e. -Werror=*). clang and gcc >>> support many of these, and this would need to be conditionalised on >>> compiler support to ensure that no one is prevented from continuing to >>> build LLDB. >>> > >>> > LLVM actually has buildbots that build with -Werror which helps >>> prevent new errors from being integrated in clang and LLVM, unfortunately, >>> the buildbot situation for LLDB is not as pretty. As such, I was wondering >>> if it would be acceptable to push this down into the normal build. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Saleem Abdulrasool >>> > compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Saleem Abdulrasool >> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> > > > -- > Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180 > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
