On September 8, 2014 2:44:39 AM CDT, Jan Engelhardt <jeng...@inai.de> wrote: > >On Monday 2014-09-08 08:08, Sebastian Huber wrote: >> >> I think we should eventually use -Werror, so it is important to get >rid of >> warnings. I am in favour of macros, since this makes it easier to >deal with >> compiler dependencies. > >-Werror is a bad idea. Your users may be using a different compiler >and/or compiler version which emits new warnings, and then they run >into >errors. This is especially annoying for distributions — it probably >does >not matter for RTEMS, but it does with respect to general software — as > >the most often encountered warnings are petty things like (a) unused >variables that stem from conditional #if/#endif pairs, (b) comparing >sign-different types, (c) conversion losing precision/narrowing types, >which are not nearly as important as crashes due to (d) whacky >type-punning and integral_type<->pointer_type conversions, (e) use of >implicitly declared things.
I would like to see -Werror on a subset of critical directories. But from a practical viewpoint, it is nearly impossible to get and keep the tree warning free on 18 target architectures. Right now there are about 2000 unique warnings when I crunch the build logs. Some BSPs only have a handful, others have up to 100. Some of these are easy to fix bit others are involved. The printf format warning I fixed and Gedare questioned the patch is turning into a delicate bug in inttypes.h which may end up requiring a new CPP predefine in GCC. I want to do a little more clean up myself and then plan a community beautification week where (hopefully) users take some time to help clean up warnings. >If warnings get lost in your compile logs, perhaps using >automake's "silent-rules" option can be of help. [Similar >tunables may exist in cmake, etc.] Autoconf.. :( >So, please, no -Werror. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
