Actually... for at least builds on 14.04 the majority of warnings had been cleared up.
The majority of what had remained were in external libs like libcoap. I think the most common way for people to have Jenkins flag warnings is to build with the warnings-as-errors flag. We're probably not to that point yet. On 08/04/2015 08:07 AM, Light, John J wrote: > 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:jonc at osg.samsung.com] > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
