[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final)
From: |
Wols Lists |
Subject: |
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final) |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:04:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110713 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 |
On 09/08/11 20:44, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 9 August 2011 20:21, Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> > So having only 9 warnings in our codebase (four of which are in the
>> > lexer/parser, which hardly anyone of us really understands!) is amazing.
> There are many more warnings (> 180) if you're compiling a 64-bit
> binary. They could be silenced via casting, but Han-Wen isn't in
> favour of that approach (http://codereview.appspot.com/1724041/):
>
> "* Why are all the casts there? Is this a 64 bit compiler thing? Lily
> compiles
> virutally without warnings over here (core duo, gcc 4.4.4). I think all the
> casting hinders readability, so I propose to not add casts unless necessary.
> If
> the warnings bother you, add a targeted -Wno-xxx option to the Makefile. I
> doubt that there are any cases where there is the risk of a real error."
>
Hmmm ...
"Is this a 64 bit compiler thing?" - not really. It's an "int" thing in
all probability. sizeof(int) is explicitly undefined. As for there
aren't any cases where there is a real risk of error, well I don't know
of any compilers where sizeof(int) = 1, but that would be perfectly
legal ...
If you shouldn't use cast, you shouldn't use int. Which is a shame,
because I think int is defined to be "the natural length of the platform
you're running on" ie it's the most efficient integer variant to use.
Imho (as I've said before) *all* warnings should be explained or fixed.
Papering over the cracks by hiding them is likely to result sooner or
later in a real problem slipping through (like a compiler defining
sizeof(int) as 1 :-)
Cheers,
Wol
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), (continued)
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Wols Lists, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Carl Sorensen, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Matthias Kilian, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Matthias Kilian, 2011/08/10
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Graham Percival, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Neil Puttock, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final),
Wols Lists <=
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Carl Sorensen, 2011/08/09
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Reinhold Kainhofer, 2011/08/08
- Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/06
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/06
Re: GOP-PROP 5: build system output (final), Phil Holmes, 2011/08/10