<div dir="ltr">You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global policy, but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're not warning free right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free without disabling some warnings (which I don't want to do either)</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <<a href="mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org">lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer <<a href="mailto:tberghammer@google.com" target="_blank">tberghammer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can decide it on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who will be responsible for fixing a warning introduced by a change in llvm or clang causing a build failure because of a warning (especially when the fix is non trivial)?</div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here. The person making the change would be responsible for ensuring that nothing breaks as a result of their change. The same situation exists when working on interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a warning introduced by a change in LLVM may be non-trivial in clang.<div><br></div><div>Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option. If it is deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state so and not do this.</div><div><br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool <<a>compnerd@compnerd.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer <<a>tberghammer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons:<div>* We are using a lot of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning free on all of them might not be feasible especially for the less used, older gcc versions.</div><div>* Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if we enable it then a clang/llvm change can break our build with a warning when it is hard to justify a revert and a fix might not be trivial.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="2"><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Err, sorry. I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and clang). Yes, a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, though the same thing exists for the LLVM/clang dependency. Since this would be on the build bots, it should get resolved rather quickly.</span></font><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying everybody should write warning free code for lldb (I think it already kind of exists) and we as a community try to ensure it during code review and with fixing the possible things what slip through. In the longer term I would be happy to see -Werror turned on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up with lldb but making this change will require a lot of discussion and might get some push back.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <<a>lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:13px">Hi,</span></div><span style="font-size:13px"><div><span style="font-size:13px"><br></span></div>It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb now. There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 on Linux, and the build is clean of warnings with clang.</span><div style="font-size:13px"><br></div><div style="font-size:13px">There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU incompatibility.<br><div><br></div><div>Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the build clean going forward?</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Saleem Abdulrasool<br>compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
lldb-dev mailing list<br>
<a>lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote><br><br>-- <br>Saleem Abdulrasool<br>compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Saleem Abdulrasool<br>compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
lldb-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>