Re: [lmi] MinGW gcc-4.3, and .tar.lzma

[Greg Chicares]

On 2008-09-01 18:17Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
>
> [-Wconversion] unfortunately results in a huge
> number of warnings and it doesn't seem doable to fix all of them. It's a
> pity as I did see plenty of bugs which could be uncovered by this warning

In lmi?

> (or its MSVC equivalent which I also had to disable in my MSVC compilation
> patch) but you have to start your project with this warning enabled, fixing
> all occurrences of it retroactively is almost hopeless. Please let me know
> what do you think about -Wno-parentheses.

I began (but soon had to abandon) an effort to make lmi compile with
these warnings enabled. I pretty much came to this conclusion:

http://www.nabble.com/PATCH-RFA:-Support--Wmissing-declarations-in-C%2B%2B-td7877603.html
| Another trouble is
| that they tend to act like viruses and spread through third-party
| libraries forcing people to code in particular way, even when that
| does not just make sense (refer to my previous messages as to how that
| spreads).  Please again consider -Weffc++ to see what I mean.
| What would be silly is that we do not think interactions with
| idiomatic constructs carefully through.

I don't balk at fixing things retroactively; I've done that for
const correctness. But a lack of const correctness is a Bad Thing
that deserves to be fixed. OTOH, IIRC, with '-Wno-parentheses':
  a = b  + c  * d; // okay
  a = b || c && d; // not okay
which I dislike because I view '||' as an additive operator and
'&&' as a multiplicative one. OTOH, I would tend to parenthesize
bitwise operators. I agree with the motivation for a compiler
diagnostic of this sort, but its author made implementation
decisions that I would have made differently, so I'd rather turn
this warning off than rewrite code that's better unchanged IMO.