On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:04:49AM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote: > In my experience having a compiler warning free code is a good way to > prevent very subtle bugs and would also be a good addition to the > programs security - and BTW more pleasant to work with ;-)
Indeed. > So here comes the buildbot into the scene. If we would use a compiler > option like "stop on warnings" (or "treat warnings as errors" or > alike), it would become at least much more obvious if new warnings > were added - the buildbot will get "red". This will also make the time > when a warning is noticed much nearer to the time the code was > added/changed - currently fixing a warning once added is often done > much later than it was introduced (making the fix unnecessarily > difficult). > An incremental way to introduce this could be: Good ideas! > As usual, this is my "Win32 point of view". I'm pretty sure the above > is possible to do for the Win32 platform. I'm not sure if it's > possible with the automake foo for the different unix/linux platform > builds ... With automake, we just need to put AM_CFLAGS = -Werror in the Makefile.am file in each directory that we're working on. > So what's the opinion about this way to improve the Wireshark code > base? Are we willing to produce only warning free code and fixing > warnings that appear on the buildbot? Yes. > While I would take a look on the Win32 warnings, are the unix/linux > developers willing to spend some time to remove warnings that don't > appear on Win32 (or would this be a "Win32 only" show)? I'm willing to work on the Unix warnings. Steve _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev