[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug #16997] compiler warning for NSZone.m

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: [bug #16997] compiler warning for NSZone.m
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:12:00 +0100

On 4 Jul 2006, at 20:54, Patrick McFarland wrote:

On Tuesday 04 July 2006 13:00, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Hmm ... I started reclassifying these as category ';change request'
rather than 'bug' and severity 'wish' rather than 'normal' since
these are plainly not bugs, just (mostly) spurious compiler warnings.
However, I'm not sure that's the right thing to do ...
Should they be closed as 'invalid' instead?  I'm inclined to think it
would be nice to change code to avoid spurious compiler warnings as a
very low priority issue, but perhaps others feel different?

Thats a bad idea because there very well could be an actual bug there. GCC just doesn't randomly warn you. Its better to actually fix these, then close
them as invalid.

Closing them as invalid, of course, would be marking them as not a bug, which
as I just said, there may actually be buggy code there. Its better to
actually fix the code that causes the warnings then close them thinking
theres no bug.

Thanks ... you obviously went to quite some effort to generate all the bug reports, which is good ... but would it not have been better to determine whether there actually were any bugs first, and report any actual bugs found (better still, provide patches)? Patches to avoid compiler warnings are also welcome ... but that needs to be done against the latest code in svn rather than an older release as it's definitely likely that the svn code will already have workarounds to avoid many compiler warnings especially any introduced by very recent compiler versions.

I don't want to close them as invalid, but it's difficult to see what to do with them ... compiler warnings aren't bugs, and are quite often spurious ... it's true that gcc doesn't issue warnings randomly, but that doesn't even remotely imply that where it issues a warning there is a bug. Also, any developer can easily see the compiler warnings, so I'm not sure that having an entry in the bug tracking system (even as a change request) serves any purpose.

Apart from compiler warnings I see two issues ...

1. 'mv config.h ./config.h' on a flattened filesystem configuration produces a harmless warning message, but it would be nice if it didn't produce the warning.

2. you had a problem with gnutar ... presumably using a really really old version? I suppose the configure script for the make package could check the version and abort with a message telling you to upgrade?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]