On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:03 AM, Jeffrey Walton [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Bollinger, John C > <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > Well, I wouldn't say the warning is bogus, but I'll accept that > it is ignoreable in this situation. I guess a static_cast<int> > would after all be the best way to make the warning go away, since > it doesn't in the end matter that a temporal object is involved. > Ah, a fellow clean-compile enthusiast (or security minded > individual). Both, actually. I have been in the business quite long enough to appreciate the many ways C provides to unintentionally shoot yourself in the foot. Also long enough to recognize that C++ approximately squares the number of ways, plus arms you with a submachine gun with a flaky safety. Resolving warnings is like keeping the safety on, however much good that's going to do. > Actually, we (I) treat a clean compile is a security gate. If the > code > can't clean compile, it does not meet quality standards and gets > kicked until it can. > > You might want to to try -Wall -Wextra -Wformat=2 -Wformat-security > -Woverloaded-virtual -Wreorder -Wno-unused -Wno-type-limits. The > last > three ease the use of C++ with -Wall -Wextra. > > For linker hardening, try -z relro and -z now for PLT and GOT > attacks. Good advice, thanks. John Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Pdfedit-support mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdfedit-support
