[lldb-dev] (no subject)

[Todd Fiala]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140326/b675207e/attachment.html>