[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Can you consider to add -Werror option?
From: |
Christian Jullien |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Can you consider to add -Werror option? |
Date: |
Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:47:26 +0100 |
Currently, there is no (or very limited) number of warnings. No warning at
all on RPi, on Fedora 20 x86_64 on Windows x86/X86_64
IMHO, it's worth to chase them all and then add -Werror which does not
introduce new warnings to test. It only refuses new changes that add new
warnings.
I strongly advocate for this option which improves code quality.
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
grischka
Sent: dimanche 9 février 2014 20:33
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Can you consider to add -Werror option?
Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> In the case of tinycc there are many unused-variable due to
> conditionals so that kind of warning ought to be ignored.
I don't see any such on win32 currently except
tccelf.c:1511:14: warning: 'fill_got_entry' defined but not used which
seems you just have introduced. ;=)
> There are also a couple of place with ignored return value which
> triggers some warning and I know grischka is against the idea of
> adding (void) in front of such function call (I personally like the
> idea to explicitly says we ignore a return value).
Whatever. Just don't forget the TinyCC principle.
M2c,
--- grischka
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel