[lldb-dev] (no subject)

[Saleem Abdulrasool]

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.
>

While Steve is correct that the %p conversion does cause a large amount of
noise, it is not the only warning that gets emitted.


> 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.


Just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing, I am *not*
suggesting we enable -Werror (even LLVM doesnt do that by default, only on
the buildbots).  I am suggesting that once things are cleaned up, we enable
those specific items as errors to avoid having them be re-introduced.


>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140317/afa4a8cd/attachment.html>