My vote is for this: > I think there should be a WERROR mode in the CMake build, and build bots should run with it. That way releases etc aren't impacted by new warnings, but developers *do* notice when they introduce a warning.
In particular, warning with clang. With the caveat of this: > You can easily disable warnings that don't have value. We do this all the time in LLVM. where there are likely a handful of warnings I'd definitely vote for turning off (like the full-coverage-enum case with default present). We can discuss these as we break warnings that we think are worthwhile (and fix them) or not (and then disable the warning). -Todd On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > In the clang/llvm world, I often get a small handful of warnings when > building locally, almost always due to my local compiler having buggy > warnings. If -Werror was enabled by default in the clang/llvm build, I'd > have a broken build fairly often. > > Maybe we could detect compiler versions and only enable -Werror for > compilers that are in some whitelist. > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> There are alot of compilers, but only a small number that we support >> building with. And really, the burden would only be on making sure that >> the compiler you personally build with builds warning free (which, >> unfortunately, even that doesn't always happen). If someone checks >> something in on Mac that introduces warnings on Windows with MSVC, then a >> Windows person would need to fix it, but I don't think that's too big of a >> deal (well, I don't mind anyway). The difference is just that "strive" >> would become "require". Sometimes you can't fix warnings for whatever >> reason, but you could still disable them in that case. >> >> I guess in an ideal world I would agree with you, that we should strive >> to keep warnings down to as low a level as possible. But in practice I >> think it's too easy to ignore them, and so people do. >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> There are so many compilers and each compiler is good at detecting >>> things that other compilers don't warn about. >>> >>> So I don't think we should enable warnings as errors, but I do think we >>> should strive to keep warnings down to as low a level as possible. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > What would it take to enable warnings as errors on all platforms? >>> > >>> > I've done alot of work getting the windows build warning free, but it >>> seems like very time I sync the code on linux or Mac, there's many many new >>> warnings introduced. I'm always vigilant about fixing warnings in my own >>> code, it would be nice if everyone else had the same level of vigilance. >>> If warnings broke the build, then I think that would be a good motivator >>> to fix your warnings. >>> > >>> > Thoughts? >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
