On Wednesday 22 July 2015 19:20:57 Scott Aron Bloom wrote: > For my company, when I first joined, the Idea of compiled with -Werror (or > the equiv on VC++) was so far down the road, that I thought it would never > be possible. We had close to 5000 warnings between windows and linux. > > We had been slowly cleaning up the code, and got one compiler after another > to compile clean :) What I had noticed, was that my windows was cleaning > up differently.. and that's when I dug deaper and found the disable pragmas > inside the Qt code. > > I have no problem with the Qt experts, saying, this warning HERE in THIS > line of code is dumb, and we have confirmed its OK.. But it was very > frustrating to have all of our Qt based code have various warnings disabled > ;(
I understand, but please take a look at the list of MSVC warnings we turn off completely: http://code.woboq.org/qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/global/qglobal.h.html#897 Of those, C4275, C4514, C4800, C4097, C4786 and C4710 are stupid. I can't see anyone who wants to know those warnings. I'll concede we may have gone too far on C4244 and C4355. > This was under a Qt 4 would, so maybe it has been fixed in Qt5, I don't > know, since I manually put in #pragma push/pops around all Qt includes to > fix the issue.. Yes, we've cleaned up. We've also cleaned up our own warnings. All public headers are individually compiled with -Werror plus a bunch more warnings that users may enable for their code. All sources are compiled with -Werror for people who are developing Qt itself, so we fix our warnings. And then there's another trick... we also began using -isystem with GCC and Clang, so they don't complain about warnings in Qt itself :-) -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
