Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
Hi Thorsten,
kendy and me now intend to execute the once-postponed plan to remove
external header guards (that #ifndef STUFF #include STUFF #endif
ugliness). A bit more background:
Hi Frank,
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany schrieb:
I'm all in for somebody else doing work :), and I do not doubt that it
is *reasonable* to remove external include guards /in general/.
I only suspect that the minor gain we get from this is not worth the
potential medium or big pain
those:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ValgrindTasks#Unfixable_Tasks
Nikolai
--
Nikolai Pretzell
OpenOffice.org developer Email: np a_t openoffice d_o_t org
Software engineer code quality
Sun Microsystems Inc., Hamburg, Germany
Also what is your opinion about OpenOffice.org++ project. One of memeber
has updated the patches for 2.2. Will someone review their patches.
According to #73468# the patches are distributed among the different
modules they apply to and I assume the project/module owners will have a
look at
Hi,
there are some interesting numbers about OOo code and code quality,
provided by a cooperation of an Hungarian company and the University of
Szeged.
The results can be found at
http://oopp.multiracio.com/index.php?page=resultslang=en (context)
and
Pavel Janík wrote:
The results can be found at
http://oopp.multiracio.com/index.php?page=resultslang=en (context)
and http://oopp.multiracio.com/downloads/Riport.pdf (data and details).
That's fairly shallow - any chance to get more than just an executive
summary? And BTW, since they state
Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
On Monday 18 December 2006 11:46, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Kai Backman wrote:
Aah. Let me rephrase. Are -you- really sure the external include guard
optimization provides enough benefit on all the compilers we are using
to make it
Hi Christian,
Christian Lohmaier schrieb:
Is there a rule wrt parenthesis? At the same line or on a seperate one?
Or is there no preference?
For MHO that is *the* typical example of what may cause a religious war,
but really need *not* to be standardized.
Yes, I have a clear preference,
Stephan Bergmann schrieb:
Attached are two quick and dirty scripts that worked for me (within
Hamburg build environment on a Linux box) to find all the places where
PRJNAME is probably set wrongly (see below). Feel free to fix those you
feel responsible for.
Hi Kohei,
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote:
+ The primary consumer of a finished spec. is QA
If the developer is the same as the spec writer. Else the developer is
as important a consumer as the QA.
So, the language used in the spec should be oriented toward QA
personnel
Hi Bernd,
Bernd Eilers wrote
We do have a semi-automated process to generate Release Notes. This
takes advantage of the OpenOffice Document file format and a standard
template being used for the specification documents. Information from
specifications documents is extracted via XSLT and a
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Behrens schrieb:
Eike Rathke wrote:
Specs aren't only about UI, they're also about behavior of a feature.
Behavior of a feature, if not obvious, is something that must be agreed
upon. We do have examples of started development, patches were sent in,
but there wasn't
Hi Thorsten, all,
Thorsten Behrens schrieb:
Hey, and yes, having a feature documented is _also_ nice
IMHO it is not nice, but an indispensable part of software
engineering. A spec defines the _intention_ of a piece of software.
Without a clear and documented intention I cannot make
Christian Lohmaier schrieb:
Again: Specs (in my opinion) is about what the effect on the user is,
not on how you code the stuff.
Agree.
One thing this thread hopefully does, is to clarify such terms, so the
whole community understands about the same thing by the word spec.
A spec describes
Hi Kohei,
Kohei Yoshida schrieb:
On 10/27/06, Nikolai Pretzell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kohei Yoshida schrieb:
In a not-so-ideal world, things don't always go as planned.
Requirements grow organically over the development life cycle of that
feature, but the spec document may not always
Thorsten Behrens schrieb:
David Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...but I think there are still significant cases where using a wiki
is a much faster route for people (particularly outside
contributors) to use to collaboratively produce a specification.
Seconded. A wiki has a low barrier
Hi,
Kohei Yoshida schrieb:
The problem with the current specification process from my own
experience and observation is that, it puts the wrong focus on the
purpose that the project is intended to serve.
In a not-so-ideal world, things don't always go as planned.
Requirements grow
Nikolai Pretzell schrieb:
Hi Thorsten,
Sorry for the german language posting, was not intended to be here.
Nikolai
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Bjoern,
Bjoern Milcke schrieb:
I came across the following piece of code:
String a;
xub_StrLen n = 0;
n += a.Len();
This breaks on Windows (due to -werror). Because of the warning:
warning C4244: '+=' : conversion from 'int' to 'USHORT', possible
loss of data (in the last
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Ziehm schrieb:
Hi Michael,
them: We need this burdensome process for Higher Quality !
us: But lets face it quality is still not good
them: Then we need -even-more- burdensome process !
repeat ad nauseum.
Nobody said, that it is needed to
Hi,
regarding the Valgrind Tasks
(http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ValgrindTasks) somebody
(Caolan?) asked some time ago, if we could do something like this for
accessability features.
I have contacted the people creating the automatic tests we use, and the
answer is unfortunately:
/ValgrindTasks
Nikolai
--
Nikolai Pretzell
OpenOffice.org Developer
Software Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc., Hamburg, Germany
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
void f(com::sun::star::uno::Any const a) {
sal_Bool b;
if (a = b) {
// warning if b is used here
}
}
Ok, I'm not a C++ programmer and this is probably not the right place
to start learning.
But isn't it the left (a) side that gets assigned in a = b?
I.e. b is
The choice of operator is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not agree that
- T b;
+ T b = T();
is in general a fix that improves code quality.
I beg to disagree.
It is always possible that between declaration and first use of b other
code is added later. If then b has at least a
Nikolai Pretzell schrieb:
The choice of operator is indeed unfortunate. However, I do not agree
that
- T b;
+ T b = T();
is in general a fix that improves code quality.
I beg to disagree.
It is always possible that between declaration and first use of b other
code is added later
Hi Frank and Philipp,
if there is a keyword valgrind, we should use this.
Nevertheless the information Valgrind in the summary is useful and
IMHO should stay there. Putting the error into the summary seems to me a
good idea, still the summary won't be too long.
The Valgrind ID is indeed a
Hi Developers,
in a few weeks and beyond, there may occur a kind of IssueZilla issues
whose summary starts with Valgrind .
Please find details about those in the OOo-Wiki:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ValgrindTasks
Best regards,
Nikolai
Hi,
in April there was a posting here by Ben Chelf, who announced that
Coverity does OOo code scans. (See
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=devmsgId=2565502)
Meanwhile when I look at http://scan.coverity.com/, OOo does no longer
seem to be listed there. Does anybody know
Yes, fully agree to Joergs interpretation.
Nikolai
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
I'd however like to establish a rule that classes/functions taking a
pointer to (possibly) not fully constructed classes have a comment that
explicitely allows that - assuming that everywhere else it is a bug.
Is a
Hi,
just to make clear, if it wasn't yet obvious:
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
So one could argue, fixing the warning does not necessarily fix the
problem, so we can remove the warning anyway.
Right. The warning (with warnings=errors) forces us to use a workaround,
which may even have a negative
Hi Carsten and all,
warning:
test.cxx(18) : warning C4355: 'this' : used in base member initializer list
class A
{
public:
A() {}
};
class B
{
A _a;
public:
B( A a ) : _a(a) {}
};
class C : public A
{
B _b;
public:
C() : _b( *(A*)this ) {}
};
int main()
{
C c;
}
Hi Stephan and all,
The consensus back then was to keep -Wnon-virtual-dtor switched on
globally, and only switch it off (together with all other warnings)
within cppumaker-generated headers, on the grounds that
-Wnon-virtual-dtor was considered a useful tool to find errors.
However, trying
Hi,
warnings
under Windows there exist the following four warnings:
C4625: copy constructor could not be generated because a base class copy
constructor is inaccessible
C4626: assignment operator could not be generated because a base class
assignment operator is inaccessible
C4511:
Nikolai Pretzell wrote:
workaround when keeping the warnings
The warnings can be work-arounded by declaring copy-constructor and
assignment-operator explicitely private in every derived or containing
class like this:
class C : public Bcd
{public
Hi all,
Ken Foskey wrote:
So I would actually recommend against an all out warnings push unless
everyone is VERY clear the objective is to highlight bugs not to remove
warnings. The difference in objectives is very important.
Yes, but given the mass of code we have, the only way I see to
Hi,
Ken Foskey wrote:
I am also concerned that then process will become a template fix.
if( fp = fopen( file, r )) {
can become:
if( (fp = fopen( file, r)) ) {
If I assign someone to clean up the error, say a junior programmer
because it is menial, and we have this code:
if( x = 4 ) {
Hi Stephan,
thanks for that announcement!
- Added SAL_INT_CAST (for C) and
std::static_int_cast and
Here (of course) sal::static_int_cast was meant ...
std::reinterpret_int_cast (for C++)
and here sal::reinterpret_int_cast.
to sal/types.h
That has already been correct in the code,
37 matches
Mail list logo
