Roger Leigh via Tiff <[email protected]> writes: > I’ve been working on improving the CI coverage and adding additional > warnings to improve the overall quality of the codebase, without > changing any existing behaviour. Since there are a large number of > changes, I just wanted to bring it up here for discussion in case any > of this was problematic or there were better approaches to consider. > Bob asked for some discussion of this in > https://gitlab.com/libtiff/libtiff/-/merge_requests/800#note_2975630537 > so this is the reason for the email.
My quick take is that this is fine and likely to fix lots of bugs, so great to do; I cheer you on. I have a few potential concerns, hopefully all totally off base in this case, but basically a list of problems I've seen in other environments. new warning flags should not be special to CI; they should be default in any build -Wwarn-foo should only be added if the compiler, already probed, is known to support it, so that there are no problems with older compilers and compilers not known to the tiff developers fixes should be made with a solid understanding of the language rules and a belief that it's a fix regardless of which compiler warns commit messages should make the language-spec-says argument, not "fix a warning" or "appease gcc 14". If there's a situation where the code is not wrong, and the compiler is wrongly complaining, and there's a workaround, that should be loudly annotated in the checked-in code and the commit message. And probably should be raised for discussion. _______________________________________________ Tiff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
