| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:20 PM Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > To illustrate harmless: |
| 3 |
> > > warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=] |
| 4 |
> > > The warning message already has it in it that it's just a pure guess. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > One that exposed a lot of unintentional fallthoughs which were fixed |
| 7 |
> > when reporting to upstream. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sure that's why the warning is there. But you ignore the point that the |
| 10 |
> same code compiled fine and ran fine for years without problems. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The fact that something is compiling and running fine meaning there |
| 13 |
are no issues (bugs) within code? |
| 14 |
Seriously? |
| 15 |
Even after no-warning with multiple compiler vendors, code coverage, |
| 16 |
unit testing, test on various of architecture developer has access to, |
| 17 |
static code analysis and running for years, bugs are there. Any method |
| 18 |
to help detect suspicious code, even if it produces amount of false |
| 19 |
positive, must be embraced of those who care about quality. New |
| 20 |
toolchains, new scanners, new architectures all can help to improve |
| 21 |
quality to make sure great service is provided to users. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
In Gentoo language, all these issues should be detected for selected |
| 24 |
packages by non-stable users, on architecture and permutations that |
| 25 |
upstream do not have access to, and to help upstream to filter false |
| 26 |
positives and find the positives ones. Even one case of funding real |
| 27 |
issue is sufficient to justify the maintenance costs, once again for |
| 28 |
selected packages in which upstream following strict quality policy |
| 29 |
and downstream follows. Once policy is applied, the amount of noise is |
| 30 |
very little, toolchain evolution is not as it was 10 years ago. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Alon |
Archives