On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:34:57PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I'm afraid I'm with Reinhold. As a *programmer*, I consider it very bad
practice to ignore warnings. For the system to hide them from me, well !!!
They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
point
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:26:00PM +0100, Wols Lists wrote:
out/parser.cc:2392: warning: conversion to 'short int' from 'int' may
alter its value
[...]
[...] That out/parser is a perfect example - it *may*
be innocuous, or it *may* be a serious problem. It really ought to be
checked out and
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
[snip very well argued case]
Reinhold,
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh...@kainhofer.com
[snip very well argued case]
Reinhold,
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I
do, and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The
- Original Message -
From: Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Reinhold Kainhofer
reinh
On 8/9/11 9:34 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On 09/08/11 11:07, Phil Holmes wrote
Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
I know you have many 10s of times more experience with lilypond than I do,
and I agree with 99% of what you say... But...
The truth is, no-one pays any attention to warnings during the build
process. If I grep the output of make
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:21:26PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Dienstag, 9. August 2011, 12:07:12 schrieb Phil Holmes:
at them. There are nine warnings from the code compiler:
And that number is really amazing and absolutely proves my point: Coders PAY
attention to warnings and
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
There are many more warnings ( 180) if you're compiling a 64-bit
binary. They
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
There are many more warnings ( 180)
On 8/9/11 2:04 PM, Wols Lists antli...@youngman.org.uk wrote:
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really
Am Tuesday, 9. August 2011, 17:34:57 schrieb Phil Holmes:
They're not being ignored. They're not even being seen. Please address my
point of how you would see them in 37,000 lines of console output.
Of these 37071 lines, exactly 34111 are only from the font generation in mf/.
When coding,
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
- will will ***NOT*** display any errors from g++. (second point)
- exception: we ***MIGHT*** display some portion(s) of the
relevant log file(s). The policy uses the word might here,
not must. There is a huge difference
Am Sonntag, 7. August 2011, 11:11:13 schrieb Phil Holmes:
There's no intention of stopping make showing errors. There is an issue
with warnings - make doc produces so many that the output is pretty much
unreadable, and they've been ignored for a long time - so having warnings
turned off by
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 05:48:47PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Montag, 8. August 2011, 02:59:31 schrieb Graham Percival:
... if we are still this unclear about precisely what the policy
states,
No, the policy is clear in that regard. It's just that this is a decision I
simply
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
wrote
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: Keith OHara
k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org; Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Make does
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc
- Original Message -
From: Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
Building the program (as opposed
- Original Message -
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see
On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 03:13:33 -0700, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
From: Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been
taking the proposal too literally.
I know no reason why it shouldn't. Have you tried putting code that
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:32 AM
Subject: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
The user may optionally request additional output to be
printed; this is controlled
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
The standard way for GNU packages to give more output is with a
V=x option. Presumably this is done by increasing x? If we support
this option, we should
Graham Percival graham at percival-music.ca writes:
** Proposal details
When you run make or make doc,
* All output will be saved to various log files, with the
exception of output directly from make(1).
* By default, no other output will be displayed on the
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 21:22:49 schrieb Keith OHara:
Building the program (as opposed to documentation) is now *very* nice, with
make -s bin
where -s is short for --silent to tell make not to print the commands she
runs. We see errors or warnings from the changed files and nothing
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
run.
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
the proposal too literally.
* There will be no additional “progress messages”
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 05:18:36PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 10:45:15 schrieb Phil Holmes:
My only comment is that it's generally the case that output is directed to
logfiles using the redirect operator . If we do this, it's hard to make
it also appear
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:07:05PM +, Keith OHara wrote:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinhold at kainhofer.com writes:
We shouldn't need to type anything to see the warnings/errors of a compile
run.
I agree, and want `make bin` to show me warnings. I might have been taking
the proposal too
Well, we can't pretend that there's unanimous support for this,
and of course there will always be concerns about specific
technical details... but I think we've got an ok set of guidelines
for future build system work, and it's time to start producing
patches.
30 matches
Mail list logo
