[PATCH] Fix most warnings with gcc 4.4 on Linux

[William Hubbs]

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 01:10:37PM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> no errors is very nice, but imho werror is a pain, and should never be
> in the production branch of a makefile.  when I'm building $random_project I
> don't want the build to fail because of some sily warning.  Personally I just
> run a script that runs a complete rebuild, and gets rid of normal make 
> messages,
> leaving only warnings, and 0 warnings makes this easier.  The issue with
> werror is that while working on stuff you have to make sure your code
> doesn't have silly warnings like the mixed declarations and code one.
> At least the way I work I want to make it work correctly before I worry
> about neatness, but that may just be me.

I couldn't disagree more.  If you pay attention to warnings, you aren't
only worrying about neatness, but cleaning up code that could cause
problems for you further down the road.  If you clean all of that up
before you commit it to the tree, you are saving the rest of the team
from dealing with issues later on.

I think that production quality code should be error and warning free if
possible, and I do not see any reason this can't be possible.

William

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<http://lists.freebsoft.org/pipermail/speechd/attachments/20100907/e0ad9810/attachment-0001.pgp>