[lldb-dev] Interest in enabling -Werror by default

[Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev]

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:
* 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.
* 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.

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.

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in
> asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU
> incompatibility.
>
> Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep the
> build clean going forward?
>
> --
> Saleem Abdulrasool
> compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160216/57e3d7f6/attachment.html>