| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 1:33 AM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Richard Yao schrieb: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >> To make code behave differently it needs substantial amount of code |
| 7 |
> >> to provide you an example. You need to him O2<->O3 behaviour delta |
| 8 |
> >> after all. But I will try (for a different warning, it should not matter |
| 9 |
> >> much). |
| 10 |
> > Thanks. I had been incorrect about -O3 giving not us some additional information for warnings. My apologies for the confusion. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Below is a reduced example of a larger C++ program. |
| 13 |
> >> Many thanks to Ulya for providing recent example! |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not that it matters now, but there are examples of packages building at -O2 |
| 16 |
> but failing to build at -O3 optimization levels, due to -Werror. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> One is dev-libs/libcss: https://bugs.gentoo.org/626752 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It is matter, and shows that for selected packages in which upstream |
| 22 |
has strict policy of no warning, each warning should be investigated |
| 23 |
as it may be a true issue. The tool compiler provide to find these |
| 24 |
edge condition should not be ignored nor overridden. The fact that a |
| 25 |
package "builds" does not mean it is free of bugs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Alon |
Archives