[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: -Wall
From: |
John Wiegley |
Subject: |
Re: -Wall |
Date: |
Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:09:25 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.1.50 (darwin) |
>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'm very much in favor of addressing and eliminating all warnings on as many
>> platforms as possible.
>>
>> That'll be a challenge. When I compile with clang -Weverything, I get
>> ~90,000 warnings.
> I don't even think it's a worthy use of our resources. C compilers move
> towards more and more noisy defaults, so the real challenge is to come up
> with a set of switches that produce a high enough signal-to-noise ratio. I'm
> not saying that the current default is that sweet spot, but -Wall, let alone
> -Weverything, is certainly not it.
-Weverything may be a bit too much, but the alternative -- that of ignoring
warnings because there are too many of them -- is also not a good choice. We
should find the sweet spot we want to adhere to, and then make it clean.
--
John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F
http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2
- Re: -Wall, (continued)
- Re: -Wall, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/04
- Re: -Wall, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2016/04/05
- Re: -Wall, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/04/05
- Re: -Wall, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/05
- Re: -Wall, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2016/04/06
- Re: -Wall, Stefan Monnier, 2016/04/06
- Re: -Wall, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/07
Re: -Wall, John Wiegley, 2016/04/04
- Re: -Wall, Philipp Stephani, 2016/04/05
- Re: -Wall, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/04/05
- Re: -Wall,
John Wiegley <=
Re: -Wall, Richard Stallman, 2016/04/05