[lldb-dev] (no subject)

[Piotr Rak]

I guess bonus points would be for adding clang --fixit for this one...


2014-03-26 20:40 GMT+01:00 Todd Fiala <tfiala at google.com>:

> I'm not against it.
>
> Locally I've occasionally done the static_cast<void*> (something_p) and
> that shuts up the gcc %p warning.  (And in the process have found
> interesting things like enum cases being ignored, etc.).
>
> One negative of all that IMHO is that it adds clutter, but if it helps us
> find real warnings, my vote would be to do it.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <
> compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, we might consider this is the GCC warning that Steve mentions below
>>> is able to be disabled for GCC builds.
>>>
>>> The one problem is the variety of warnings that are enabled by default
>>> on different systems. GCC enables different things by default, and so does
>>> clang. As the compilers change it will be hard for other people on other
>>> systems to keep up. Also, no changes should ever be reverted because of
>>> compiler warnings, people would need to fix them on the system on which
>>> they are failing due to the compiler differences...
>>>
>>> So currently, unless GCC can disable the lame "%p" warning when using
>>> anything but a "void *", this is a non-starter.
>>
>>
>> I realise that this is probably an exercise in futility, but, if I were
>> to spend the time to add the appropriate casts for the pointer conversions
>> (which consequentially would quiet up some of the static analyzer
>> warnings!), would there be any objections to that?
>>
>> Having slowly cleaned up some of the warnings, it seems that there are
>> actual minor things floating about that we were missing.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Steve Pucci <spucci at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > On Linux/gcc, the great majority of warnings is for a warning about
>>> using %p in a printf with a void* argument, which IMHO is a bogus warning
>>> that only gcc emits, and AFAICT can't be disabled without disabling the
>>> other far-more-useful printf warnings.  I wound up writing a script to
>>> filter these out from my build logs rather than try to fix them all.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <
>>> compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > As the LLDB build currently exists, there are a large number of
>>> warnings which clutter the build.  This is even worse on Linux when
>>> building with gcc.
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering if there would be any objection to forcing errors on
>>> warnings as they as they get cleaned up.  This requires that the compiler
>>> support marking certain warnings a errors (i.e. -Werror=*).  clang and gcc
>>> support many of these, and this would need to be conditionalised on
>>> compiler support to ensure that no one is prevented from continuing to
>>> build LLDB.
>>> >
>>> > LLVM actually has buildbots that build with -Werror which helps
>>> prevent new errors from being integrated in clang and LLVM, unfortunately,
>>> the buildbot situation for LLDB is not as pretty.  As such, I was wondering
>>> if it would be acceptable to push this down into the normal build.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Saleem Abdulrasool
>>> > compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Saleem Abdulrasool
>> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Todd Fiala | Software Engineer |  tfiala at google.com |  650-943-3180
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140326/3ca71bb2/attachment.html>