| 1 |
Matt Turner schrieb: |
| 2 |
> This sounds good in theory, but I think it's pretty well established |
| 3 |
> that in practice this isn't effective and instead is a large waste of |
| 4 |
> time. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I think even the thread starter stated that -Werror is unnecessary in the |
| 7 |
vast majority of cases. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> In fact, the foundational premise that it's possible to build |
| 10 |
> without warnings everywhere is simply wrong. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built |
| 13 |
> this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this |
| 14 |
> configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch |
| 15 |
> committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for |
| 16 |
> Werror preventing the code from building. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free from |
| 19 |
the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But that is not |
| 20 |
the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and taking appropriate action, |
| 21 |
and then applying a change to no longer cause that particular warning (or |
| 22 |
make it non-fatal if the warning is bogus/harmless). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives