Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
Unfortunately, recent discussion left me with the impression that few folks care.
It is not about caring, once again the argument is about a personal preference: is the ugliness and decreased readability that is often required to silence a warning reasonable.
I suggest we don't talk in the abstract. Once a specific set of warning options, together with -Werror is in place, you can raise your concerns about any particular warning emitted by any particular compiler, and hopefully, some per-warning-kind agreement can be reached.
I agree that the only way warnings can be addressed effectively is to use -Werror. On the other hand, the idea that a warning is the same as an error challenges my world view. :)
I understand why you say that we can't talk in the abstract. It's downright silly not to fix certain "good" warnings and we, as a community, definitely can agree on a reasonable definition of "good".
However this will not address the issue at hand, which is that people who use higher warning levels will see tons of warnings. A better attitude is http://www.zlib.net/zlib_faq.html#faq35.
Yes, that's a good attitude. However, how are we going to be sure that the code works, when the compiler says it might not? The original example of a newer release pointing out that old type punning is illegal, is really frightening. Bo Persson