On 29.09.2017 22:33, Scott Robison wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Bob Friesenhahn > <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: >> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Scott Robison wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The problem is that there is no one best practice for resolving all >>> >> such warnings in a way that makes all compilers happy. It is possible >>> >> to fix all the warnings for one platform, then move on to the next >>> >> platform and fix all its warnings, and return to the original platform >>> >> and discover that new warnings have been introduced. >> > >> > >> > My own experience has been that it is possible to write valid C code which >> > does not produce warnings at high warning levels on just about any standard >> > C compiler. It is not necessarily a case of "whack a mole". The most >> > annoying exception is the Microsoft Visual C Compiler, which produces >> > deprecation warnings for standard functions. >> > >> > One does need to be very careful when fixing compiler warnings so as to not >> > introduce new bugs. The most dangerous warnings to work on are those >> > involving signed vs unsigned types. > Except for the fact that the OP called for maximum pedantic warnings. > In that case, you can't reliably fix all the warnings, because > different compilers have different ideas of what maximum means. > > In this very thread there is a warning from GCC about > > #if SQLITE_4_BYTE_ALIGNED_MALLOC
What can be wrong for _any_ of the compilers if you will define SQLITE_4_BYTE_ALIGNED_MALLOC as 0 in sqlite3.h? It's so simple. I think it should only get better for all platforms and compilers ) _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
