On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Scott Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Antoine Labour wrote:
> > So in practice, enabling -Werror for compilers we're not looking at has
> > about no positive effect for us, and a negative effect for
> users/potential
> > contributors, so I'll agre
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Fabien Tassin wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 12:06 -0800, Evan Martin wrote:
> > I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
> > (and get an additional report from users at about that same rate).
>
> I don't mind when my automated daily buil
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 12:06 -0800, Evan Martin wrote:
> I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
> (and get an additional report from users at about that same rate).
I don't mind when my automated daily builds break once in a while, but
when the same error stays there for
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
>
>> This works for warnings we know about now, but not warnings that will
>> occur in the future, which is the larger problem.
>> I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every coup
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Evan Martin wrote:
> This works for warnings we know about now, but not warnings that will
> occur in the future, which is the larger problem.
> I'd say we break the automated Ubuntu builds every couple of weeks
> (and get an additional report from users at about
On Nov 21, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> We should whitelist known compiler versions that build successfully
> with -Werror, and then turn it off for the rest.
I did something in this spirit, though in kludgy form, a few weeks ago. After I
fixed all the current GCC warnings in WebCore
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> There is another fix, which is to disable to warning within the file or
> globally for GCC versions less than X. GCC exposes a number of different
> macros and switches that let you determine the version precisely either from
> script or in
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Evan Martin wrote:
> I have been particularly frustrated with gcc warning bugs that have
> been fixed in newer versions of gcc. In older gccs, the following
> code produces a "variable may be used uninitialized" warning depending
> on your optimization settings.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 7:21 AM, rahul wrote:
>>I happen to find this warning very useful, just as I find our policy
>>to make warnings hard errors in our own code helpful.
> Yes, of course. That's a good practice. But what about the end-users
> who have to deal with warnings as hard errors.
I ha
