I wasn't complaining about the new warning level. I was pointing out the irony that we hadn't eliminated the warnings that appeared BEFORE we changed the warning level.
I'm surprised Jenkins doesn't complain about warnings. John -----Original Message----- From: Jon A. Cruz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:35 PM To: Keane, Erich; Light, John J Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] warnings! FYI, the increased warnings had already flagged at least one bug where network send errors were being missed due to a check that looked at a signed value being less than zero. Catching such a bug in code review that should have been flagged by the compiler was the reason the lack of -Wextra was noticed in the first place. First cleanups fixed Ubuntu 14.04 from 9.0k warnings down to 0.6k warnings. Similar passes for 12.04 will follow, but as it stands builds were only seeing about 2k warnings. The velocity on warning cleanup should fairly quickly get to the point again where it is easy to spot significant issues as (or before) they are introduced. On 08/03/2015 03:00 PM, Keane, Erich wrote: > As far as the 'sea of non-critical warnings', you aren't wrong. > However, NOW is sorta the best time to do this, since we are between > releases, and it gives us as much time as possible to fix them. All > patches to fix warnings are looked on quite favorably :) > > -Erich > > > On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 21:55 +0000, Light, John J wrote: >> I?ve noticed a great increase in the number of warnings during build. >> There have been more warnings in recently merged code, but this >> lastest increase seems to be the result of ratcheting up the warning >> threshold. >> >> >> >> I suspect we are well into the territory where critical warnings >> won?t be seen because they will be lost in a sea of non-critical warnings. >> >> >> >> Leaving that aside, I have a coding question in this new regime. >> >> >> >> A C file I am modifying but didn?t write has the following code: >> >> >> >> OCPersistentStorage ps = {}; >> >> ps.open = client_fopen; >> >> ps.read = fread; >> >> ps.write = fwrite; >> >> ps.close = fclose; >> >> ps.unlink = unlink; >> >> >> >> This gets a warning about each line, like: >> >> >> >> warning: missing initializer for member >> 'OCPersistentStorage::open' >> >> >> >> I can eliminate the warnings by coding it thus: >> >> >> >> OCPersistentStorage ps = { client_fopen, fread, fwrite, fclose, >> unlink }; >> >> OCRegisterPersistentStorageHandler(&ps); >> >> >> >> But this seems more fragile since the ordering matters. >> >> >> >> Is there a C initialization method I?m missing? >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> iotivity-dev mailing list >> iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org >> https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > -- Jon A. Cruz - Senior Open Source Developer Samsung Open Source Group jonc at osg.samsung.com
