On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This points to other ideas:
1) how about adding a helper switch to show what is included in Wall?
such as -Wall-print
Doesn't
gcc -Q -Wall --help=warnings
give you this?
Yes, but...how would I know to use this?
For example, gcc --help
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:11:11PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific
variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always
a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile.
Not always. Any project large enough (or serious
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:49:18 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
If we include a warning in -Wall then it is because we believe it to be
generally useful and likely to uncover common bugs/mistakes.
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/10/2013 04:51 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
OK, I may be biased, because I have *only* seen false positives with
this warning so far. Others may have made better experience with it.
It's found numerous bugs across many projects. The reduction in bug
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:11:28AM +0200, Andreas Arnez wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:51 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
OK, I may be biased, because I have *only* seen false positives with
this warning so far. Others may have made better experience with it.
It's found numerous bugs across many
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Arg, no. -Werror is very useful for development and I'm sure that
code quality increases because of it, but it should never be enabled
by default for releases. I think about 80% of the bugs we've had
filed so far for packages failing
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 07:56 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have
Tom Tromey tro...@redhat.com writes:
gdb only enables it for the development branch, not for releases. If
you're building from CVS you're expected to know how to either fix
these problems or disable -Werror. Typically the fix is trivial; if
you look through the archives you'll see fixes
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
I personally like -Wall -Werror. While we do run into false positives and
the set of false positives does change from release to release as a result
of optimizations, I believe there's been an overall improvement in the
quality
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror successfully for many years are now forced to
On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror
On 07/10/2013 04:51 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
OK, I may be biased, because I have *only* seen false positives with
this warning so far. Others may have made better experience with it.
It's found numerous bugs across many projects. The reduction in bug
reports
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been
No. People expect that -Werror turns warnings into errors.
That is what we have documented for years.
Starting to special case these things is a royal road to confusion,
and a slippery slope.
Ok, I will keep removing -Werrors from Makefiles then.
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a
On 07/10/2013 05:11 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific
variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always
a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile.
I could not have put it any better.
Andrew.
On 10 July 2013 17:11, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific
variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always
a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile.
That's a very nice way to put it.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:42:55AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
On 07/10/2013 10:29 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10 July 2013 17:11, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific
variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always
a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile.
That's a very nice way
On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/10/2013 10:29 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10 July 2013 17:11, Andi Kleen wrote:
FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific
variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always
a serious mistake in
On 07/10/2013 05:48 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
It seems to me there are two cases. One is releases, where you want to
maximize the odds that an install will work. For that you clearly don't want
-Werror, and you might want to trim back the warnings. The other is the
development
What about introducing a new blanket warning kind that excludes
anything with false positives? something like -WALL ?
David
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Andreas Arnez ar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Jeff Law l...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 07:56 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
Andrew
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
What about introducing a new blanket warning kind that excludes
anything with false positives? something like -WALL ?
I am doubtful more ropes is the answer.
-- Gaby
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
What about introducing a new blanket warning kind that excludes
anything with false positives? something like -WALL ?
I am
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com
wrote:
What about introducing a new blanket warning kind
There are two fundamental problems:
1) uninit warning has false positives.
2) people disagree what is the expected behavior of -Wall.
1) can only be solved by improving the analysis. The new option is a
reasonable way to solve 2), unless you think the only way to solve it
is to change the
Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com writes:
What about introducing a new blanket warning kind that excludes
anything with false positives? something like -WALL ?
This still doesn't help if any new compiler version
could ever add a new warning.
-Andi
--
a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
There are two fundamental problems:
1) uninit warning has false positives.
2) people disagree what is the expected behavior of -Wall.
1) can only be solved by improving the analysis.
I think we should focus on this.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
There are two fundamental problems:
1) uninit warning has false positives.
2) people disagree what is the expected behavior of
This points to other ideas:
1) how about adding a helper switch to show what is included in Wall?
such as -Wall-print
Doesn't
gcc -Q -Wall --help=warnings
give you this?
Otherwise, I think it is a bug.
2) how about making -Wall configurable -- a default config file is
looked at by the
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
This points to other ideas:
1) how about adding a helper switch to show what is included in Wall?
such as -Wall-print
Doesn't
gcc -Q -Wall --help=warnings
give you this?
Yes it does work as expected.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
To be honest, I agree with Gabriel here. And I would go a step
forward, I would say that we are too timid with the warnings we enable
by default or by -Wall. We should warn more agressively, and let users
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:49:18 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote:
If we include a warning in -Wall then it is because we believe it to be
generally useful and likely to uncover common bugs/mistakes. It is therefore
reasonable for users to issue -Wall -Werror even in
When building gdb with newer gcc versions I frequently stumble across
maybe-uninitialized false positives, like the ones documented in bug
57237. Various bugs address similar issues, and in bug 56526 Jakub
Jelinek wrote:
Maybe-uninitialized warnings have tons of known false positives, while
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror successfully for many years are now forced to
investigate non-existing bugs in their code.
On 9 July 2013 13:04, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror successfully for many years are now forced to
On 07/09/2013 02:56 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
What matters is whether *some* stages of production code development use
this combination of options. It could certainly be argued whether it
should also be a project's configure default, like currently the case
for gdb.
It's not a problem for GDB
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror successfully for many years are now forced to
Andrew I would question the appropriateness of using -Wall -Werror in
Andrew production code.
Andreas What matters is whether *some* stages of production code
Andreas development use this combination of options. It could
Andreas certainly be argued whether it should also be a project's
Andreas
On 07/09/2013 07:56 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:
With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep
maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using
-Wall -Werror
39 matches
Mail list logo
