I am anticipating the rebase from hell. I have had to fix warnings in some of my in-process patches just so I can make progress. Meanwhile, some juggernaut (Jon?) is fixing them the same files and merging them. Then I will need to rebase my patch, and there will be dozens or hundreds of trivial conflicts I get to resolve by hand.
John -----Original Message----- From: Lankswert, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:34 AM To: Keane, Erich Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; jonc at osg.samsung.com; Light, John J Subject: RE: [dev] warnings! Erich, The specificity that I wish that we could make is "Unused variable" warning as warning and "Missing return from non-void function" warning as an error. Have you looked at this level of selection? Pat > -----Original Message----- > From: Keane, Erich > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:30 PM > To: Lankswert, Patrick > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; jonc at osg.samsung.com; Light, John > J > Subject: Re: [dev] warnings! > > We've had a pretty good effort throughout both Samsung and Intel, so I > suspect that the warnings will be near-zero in the very near future. > > It would be my preference to get this to zero ASAP, then set -Werror > to prevent it from happening again. I realize that the "stop immediately" > part is annoying, but it would be better to make sure people recognize > them happening asap, instead of ignoring them. > > I'll note that our warning count (under old rules) was 0 for quite a > while, but slowly eeked up to ~20 about 2 weeks ago! > > -Erich > > On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 18:28 +0000, Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > > John, > > > > I have mixed thoughts in this space. There are a number of > > contributions that > the contributor clearly did not look at the warnings. > > In addition, there may be cases where a warning may be ok. > > > > Pat > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Light, John J > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 2:04 PM > > > To: Lankswert, Patrick; Jon A. Cruz; Keane, Erich > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > > Subject: RE: [dev] warnings! > > > > > > Pat, > > > > > > The problem with instructing the compiler to treat errors as > > > warnings is that it stops the build. I would prefer checking for > > > any warnings over the build only AFTER everything builds error free. > > > > > > Also, might it be better to enforce the higher warning level on > > > resource first, and when that gets cleaned up start on service. > > > > > > John > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lankswert, Patrick > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 8:12 AM > > > To: Light, John J; Jon A. Cruz; Keane, Erich > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > > Subject: RE: [dev] warnings! > > > > > > John, > > > > > > I think that Jenkins only looks at the compiler exit code. I do > > > not think that we have instructed the compiler to treat warnings as > > > errors... yet. > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > > > > [mailto:iotivity-dev- bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Light, John J > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 11:07 AM > > > > To: Jon A. Cruz; Keane, Erich > > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > > > Subject: Re: [dev] warnings! > > > > > > > > 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
