| 1 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free |
| 4 |
>> from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But |
| 5 |
>> that is not the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and taking |
| 6 |
>> appropriate action, and then applying a change to no longer cause that |
| 7 |
>> particular warning (or make it non-fatal if the warning is bogus/harmless). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> sure, but for upstreams that make this an explicit goal, do we really |
| 10 |
> want to apply additional downstream pataches with the additional |
| 11 |
> complexity that carries for build system (autotools re-generation that |
| 12 |
> might make it unsupported upstream etc) ? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I fully understand why in the general case this is considered undesirable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But in very specific cases it can make sense to err on the side of caution, |
| 17 |
and the rigid -Werror policy gets in the way. This is what the initial |
| 18 |
message by bircoph suggested. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Best regards, |
| 22 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives