I think something I'd use was a @strict macro that annotates a function as something I'm willing to get plenty of warnings from, that'd be quite nice. We have the ability to add such compiler flags now, right?
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 12:21:06 PM UTC-4, Peter Brady wrote: > > Other startup flags have a user/all option which would conceivably solve > the problem of getting too many warnings on startup. My views are likely > colored by my use case - solving systems of PDEs. Since my work is > strictly numerical, I've never met an ::Any that served a useful purpose. > > On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 9:50:17 AM UTC-6, Tim Holy wrote: >> >> Related ongoing discussion in >> https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/10980 >> >> But I don't think it's practical or desirable to warn about all type >> instability; there are plenty of cases where it's either a useful or >> unavoidable property. The goal of optimization should be to eliminate >> those >> cases that actually matter for performance, and not worry about the ones >> that >> don't. If you run your code (or just, start julia) and see 100 warnings >> scroll >> past, you won't know where to begin. >> >> --Tim >> >> On Friday, April 24, 2015 11:12:57 AM Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> > Yes, I'd like to add exactly this kind of thing. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Peter Brady <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > Tim Holy introduced me to the wonders of @code_warntype in this >> discussion >> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/sq5gj-3TdQU. >> I've >> > > since been using it to track down other instabilities in my code >> since it >> > > turns out that I'm very good at writing poor julia code. Are there >> any >> > > plans to incorporate automatic warnings about type unstable functions >> when >> > > they are compiled? Maybe even via a startup flag like `-Wunstable`? >> I >> > > would prefer that its on by default. This would go a long way >> towards >> > > helping me write much better code and probably help new users get >> more of >> > > the performance they were expecting. >> >>
