On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-4, jean-pierre.muench wrote: > > I think our aim should really be to pass all builds with all sorts of > -Wall (MSVC, Intel C++, GCC) however I think this may get interesting on at > least Windows. But each warning has a reason and as a security library we > should be notified about anything that may cause unusual behavior. So I > think enabling Wall on GCC (+Clang) is a good direction for our library. If > we "killed" all warnings on Clang and GCC and I get back in involvement we > may also want to increase warning levels on Windows and Intel, although I > think standard libraries also cause some of the warnings... > Yeah, I'm a big fan of warnings. The compiler creates a rich context for analysis, and all projects should be leveraging them.
Code under my purview in real life has to clean compile under -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion. Its a security gate, so I have the authority to reject anything that does not meet standards. But its painful to elevate those warnings in a mature project that did not start with them. In this regard, there's nothing special about Crypto++. OpenSSL, GnuPG, and others suffer the same. Related, we'll be doing more with Coverity in the future, too. They provide their service for free of FOSS projects. https://scan.coverity.com/projects. Jeff -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
