[lldb-dev] Enabling warnings as errors
tfiala at google.com
Fri Aug 15 07:19:49 PDT 2014
My vote is for this:
> I think there should be a WERROR mode in the CMake build, and build bots
should run with it. That way releases etc aren't impacted by new warnings,
but developers *do* notice when they introduce a warning.
In particular, warning with clang.
With the caveat of this:
> You can easily disable warnings that don't have value. We do this all the
time in LLVM.
where there are likely a handful of warnings I'd definitely vote for
turning off (like the full-coverage-enum case with default present). We
can discuss these as we break warnings that we think are worthwhile (and
fix them) or not (and then disable the warning).
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
> In the clang/llvm world, I often get a small handful of warnings when
> building locally, almost always due to my local compiler having buggy
> warnings. If -Werror was enabled by default in the clang/llvm build, I'd
> have a broken build fairly often.
> Maybe we could detect compiler versions and only enable -Werror for
> compilers that are in some whitelist.
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> There are alot of compilers, but only a small number that we support
>> building with. And really, the burden would only be on making sure that
>> the compiler you personally build with builds warning free (which,
>> unfortunately, even that doesn't always happen). If someone checks
>> something in on Mac that introduces warnings on Windows with MSVC, then a
>> Windows person would need to fix it, but I don't think that's too big of a
>> deal (well, I don't mind anyway). The difference is just that "strive"
>> would become "require". Sometimes you can't fix warnings for whatever
>> reason, but you could still disable them in that case.
>> I guess in an ideal world I would agree with you, that we should strive
>> to keep warnings down to as low a level as possible. But in practice I
>> think it's too easy to ignore them, and so people do.
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
>>> There are so many compilers and each compiler is good at detecting
>>> things that other compilers don't warn about.
>>> So I don't think we should enable warnings as errors, but I do think we
>>> should strive to keep warnings down to as low a level as possible.
>>> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> > What would it take to enable warnings as errors on all platforms?
>>> > I've done alot of work getting the windows build warning free, but it
>>> seems like very time I sync the code on linux or Mac, there's many many new
>>> warnings introduced. I'm always vigilant about fixing warnings in my own
>>> code, it would be nice if everyone else had the same level of vigilance.
>>> If warnings broke the build, then I think that would be a good motivator
>>> to fix your warnings.
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > lldb-dev mailing list
>>> > lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | tfiala at google.com | 650-943-3180
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev