Re: [dev] Warning free code: some more warnings that might be disabled

2006-08-08 Thread Stephan Bergmann

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Hi folks,

while trying to get basebmp and vigra warning free, I've been bitten
by the following two msvc warnings:

-

Compiler Warning (level 3) C4686 


'user-defined type' : possible change in behavior, change in UDT
return calling convention

A class template specialization was not is defined before it was used
in a return type. Anything that instantiates the class will resolve
C4686; declaring an instance or accessing a member (Cint::anything)
are also options.

-

Compiler Warning (level 4) C4668 


Error Message 'symbol' is not defined as a preprocessor macro,
replacing with '0' for 'directives'

A symbol that was not defined was used with a preprocessor
directive. The symbol will evaluate to false. To define a symbol, you
can use either the #define directive or /D compiler option.

-

C4686 is one of those infamous 'let's warn our users, because we've
changed behaviour and fixed a nonconformant behaviour' MS noise
generators (it's about which calling convention is used for the
not-yet-instantiated return type). I'd say could safely be disabled.


Agreed that such warnings should be disabled globally.  (I also want to 
disable warning C4347: behavior change: 'overload A' is called instead 
of 'overload B' on CWS sb59, which is for example triggered by some 
instances of std::minsal_Int32(a,b).)



C4668 can potentially unearth real portability problems (that a try to
access an undefined preprocessor macro evaluates to '0' is a
convention possibly not shared by all c++ compilers of this universe)


This behavior is not a convention, but mandated by the C/C++ standards. 
 Still, in all the cases I encountered so far where MSC issued this 
warning, it either (a) unearthed really broken code like #if 
STRCODE==sal_Unicode in tools/source/string/strimp.cxx:1.7, (b) was easy 
to either fix the offending #if FOO to something like #ifdef FOO (which 
appeared to be the intended code, and the original author had merely 
been sloppy), or (c) was easy to wrap the offending (external) header in 
some disable-warnings #pragma (which was needed anyway, as the external 
header also produced other warnings).  Thus, I am reluctant to disable 
this warning globally.



- unfortunately, it's implicitely relied upon by boost's
BOOST_WORKAROUND macro (boost/workaround.hpp). Since no other compiler
warns about that, I've no idea how to fix BOOST_WORKAROUND, and this
macro's use is quite abundant in boost, I'd also suggest disabling
it. This could be temporary, until upstream boost has
fixed/workarounded this.


Would it work to disable that warning locally within boost headers?


Last, but not least there's a really annoying side effect of gcc's
-Wshadow warning: when declaring functions that overload one of the
gcc builtin functions, you get the following warning issued:

stl/stl/_complex.h:782: warning: shadowing built-in function `int
std::abs(int)'

Switching off -Wshadow cures this, as well as disabling gcc's builtins
via -fno-builtin. But both prolly aren't changes we want to do
persistently for gcc. Any other ideas?


We already sprinkled our STLport patches with pragmas to disable 
warnings locally within those headers.  Seems this is just yet another 
place where we need to do that.


-Stephan


Thanks for listening, feedback greatly appreciated,


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [dev] Warning free code: some more warnings that might be disabled

2006-08-08 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Stephan Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Thorsten Behrens wrote:
  -
  Compiler Warning (level 3) C4686 'user-defined type' : possible
  change in behavior, change in UDT
  return calling convention
 [...]
 
 Agreed that such warnings should be disabled globally.  (I also want
 to disable warning C4347: behavior change: 'overload A' is called
 instead of 'overload B' on CWS sb59, which is for example triggered
 by some instances of std::minsal_Int32(a,b).)

Ok - will disable it then.
 
  C4668 can potentially unearth real portability problems (that a try to
  access an undefined preprocessor macro evaluates to '0' is a
  convention possibly not shared by all c++ compilers of this universe)
 
 This behavior is not a convention, but mandated by the C/C++
 standards. Still, in all the cases I encountered so far where MSC
 issued this warning, it either (a) unearthed really broken code like
 #if STRCODE==sal_Unicode in tools/source/string/strimp.cxx:1.7, (b)
 was easy to either fix the offending #if FOO to something like #ifdef
 FOO (which appeared to be the intended code, and the original author
 had merely been sloppy), or (c) was easy to wrap the offending
 (external) header in some disable-warnings #pragma (which was needed
 anyway, as the external header also produced other warnings).  Thus, I
 am reluctant to disable this warning globally.
 
  - unfortunately, it's implicitely relied upon by boost's
  BOOST_WORKAROUND macro (boost/workaround.hpp). Since no other compiler
  warns about that, I've no idea how to fix BOOST_WORKAROUND, and this
  macro's use is quite abundant in boost, I'd also suggest disabling
  it. This could be temporary, until upstream boost has
  fixed/workarounded this.
 
 Would it work to disable that warning locally within boost headers?
 
In principle, yes - only that there are currently ~25 files to clobber
with this (but see below).

  Last, but not least there's a really annoying side effect of gcc's
  -Wshadow warning: when declaring functions that overload one of the
  gcc builtin functions, you get the following warning issued:
  stl/stl/_complex.h:782: warning: shadowing built-in function `int
  std::abs(int)'
  Switching off -Wshadow cures this, as well as disabling gcc's
  builtins
  via -fno-builtin. But both prolly aren't changes we want to do
  persistently for gcc. Any other ideas?
 
 We already sprinkled our STLport patches with pragmas to disable
 warnings locally within those headers.  Seems this is just yet another
 place where we need to do that.
 
Hm. I'm not sure whether this is an approach that scales. Admittedly,
the ~180 cases in STLport-4.0.patch are generated automatically - but
is anything of that going to be upstreamed?

There's of course a fine line between fixing obviously incorrect code,
and mutilating it to the likings of specific compiler's warning
sets. The latter does not make the code more portable, and
significantly increases the chance of build breakage on the platforms
not built (unless there are zero-cost mechanisms to build on _all_
werror=t platforms - c.f. build bots).

I'm not suggesting that C4668 falls into this category (-Wshadow
clearly does not), but I'm convinced that we must agree on a set of
warnings that's enforced (werror=t), and a superset that can
optionally be used by the developer to improve code quality. For the
former, we should err on the safe side, the latter could also contain
more controversial stuff (I'm still a big fan of gcc's -Weffc++).

Would you agree that having a warning enabled that has uncovered one
real bug in N years of development, offers a bad cost/benefit ratio if
it needs recurring fixes in external code/frequently breaks HEAD?

Cheers,

-- 

Thorsten

If you're not failing some of the time, you're not trying hard enough.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]