On 2020/02/02 14:41:51, dan_faithful.be wrote: > On Feb 2, 2020, at 09:15, mailto:[email protected] wrote: > > > >> I don't like this methodology, what's the difference over disabling > >> -Wconversion > > > > My selfish is reason is that it gets the warnings out of the way of > > whomever is not interested in fixing casts, including myself. > > About 1/3 of the remaining warnings are for conversions between integer and > floating point types. Those are most likely to be solved with static_cast<> in > the long term, so I would have no objection if you approached _those_ that way.
https://codereview.appspot.com/563460043/ > (I encourage static_cast<> over C-style casts because static_cast is easier to > grep for and the compiler is not so see-no-evil about it.) http://codereview.appspot.com/547560044 > > If the base compile is free of warnings, we can add -Werror to the > > compile, and any new errors will cause a failure in our CI, which is a > > much better way of preventing regressions. > > This is an idea I can back. I recall that g++ supports something like -Werror > -Wwarning=conversion (don't have time to check) that would allow treating most > warnings as errors right now. right, but that will still leave warnings that are non-actionable for random contributors in the compilation output, which is what I am arguing against > I do have a reservation when it comes to supporting many versions of compiler. > I've been in the position of having to deal with false positive warnings from > older compilers that were not well covered in CI. It was a drag. Hmm. Good point; because if we put -Werror inthe default compile flags, we'll create problems for whomever is using the "wrong" version of the compiler. https://codereview.appspot.com/557190043/
