On 04/18/2012 09:52 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
MacOSX is one of the few platform that has consistently been built
with --enable-werror.
removing the benefit of it just for a micro-optimization seems an
overkill.
I agree with Norbert here. The more tinderboxes we have that (continue
to) use --enable-werror, the better. (If with significantly different
compilers, even better.)
I have no problem with different, I have a problem with broken. There's no
benefit of fixing warnings for a compiler that is 6 years old. If the warning
were valid, recent gcc would emit it too.
We have to live with broken compilers. And on Mac OS X we are pretty
much bound to that specific compiler instance.
With the >>= issue at hand, IMO the benefits (--enable-werror for Mac OS
X) outweigh the costs (sprinkle the code base with trivial "= T()" or
similar initializations).
Or does that mean I should enable WaE for the MSVC tinderbox too? That should
be some fun, with people even now not bothering to fix that build that much.
Yes, we should certainly --enable-werror there. The code base used to
be warning-free even for MSVC. Everything else is a regression.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
