Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Prevent compiler warnings by using "stop on warnings"/"treat warnings as errors"

["Luis Ontanon" <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Inline comments...

On 3/20/07, Martin Mathieson <martin.r.mathieson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Currently, you don't tend to even notice new warnings that you introduce
> > on your own platform, as they get lost in the general compilation noise.

> Part of the problem (when working from the command-line at least) is
> how much output is generated, and how far you'd need to scroll back to
> see the compilation of the file you've just changed.  For speed, I
> spend much of the time only compiling the one file,  e.g. I'll run
> 'make epan/dissectors/packet-whatever.lo' until my changes compile.
> This makes my affect on the number of warnings pretty obvious.

Which I believe is what we should all do.

I been following a policy myself is that for every file I modify I
remove all the warnings I get (well I leave there those for static
functions not used and some about signedness of strings).

If at least the "committers" take an approach of squelching warnings
one file at a time, while we work on that file, little by little we
can get rid of most (if not all) of them...

I do not think we should deeply involve ourselves on a project of
fixing warnings as a task on its own... I think our time is better
used by either adding new features or fixing factual bugs, and while
at it remove the warnings from the files we edit/patch.

> > Incidentally, if anyone knows the right knob to stop gcc accepting
> > variable declarations in the middle of a block of code, it really needs
> > turning on. I manage to mess this up almost every time I submit a patch...
> I think -Wdeclaration-after-statement is what you need.

I think that's what I need as well!


--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan