On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/15/2015 10:47 PM, Ashod Nakashian wrote: > >> > >> It probably is, but with some caveats. My main concern would be > >> unnecessary code pollution. It's true that these warnings could be > >> really useful. They might hint at actual issues in some cases (for > >> example an unhandled error in the unused-result case). > >> But suppressing them can also muddle the code. I rather 'fix' the cases > >> that might hide real issues rather than suppress/silence noise just for > >> its own sake. > > > > > > Our OOo/LO history has shown us that compiler warnings are only helpful for > > development if they break the build. Unfortunately, that means that you > > occasionally need to find a way to work around a false warning unhelpfully > > emitted by some compiler.
Indeed. This is why having a convenient configure flag for when it's useful might be a good idea. Otherwise, it's just pure noise (or worse). > > I concur and it is not just LO... with warnings, only a 0-policy makes sens. > Either we care about them or we do not at all, but selectively caring > inevitably lead to the forest that hide the tree. > > Norbert, who recall -- without any nostalgia - the 1000's of warning > that used to litter the code few years back... With -Werror this won't be the case. Your pain is shared by me at least. However, if -Og helps someone (with a lot of time and patience) to improve some code, patches sure are welcome. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
