On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Greg Clayton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, we might consider this is the GCC warning that Steve mentions below > is able to be disabled for GCC builds. > While Steve is correct that the %p conversion does cause a large amount of noise, it is not the only warning that gets emitted. > The one problem is the variety of warnings that are enabled by default on > different systems. GCC enables different things by default, and so does > clang. As the compilers change it will be hard for other people on other > systems to keep up. Also, no changes should ever be reverted because of > compiler warnings, people would need to fix them on the system on which > they are failing due to the compiler differences... So currently, unless GCC can disable the lame "%p" warning when using > anything but a "void *", this is a non-starter. Just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing, I am *not* suggesting we enable -Werror (even LLVM doesnt do that by default, only on the buildbots). I am suggesting that once things are cleaned up, we enable those specific items as errors to avoid having them be re-introduced. > > Greg > > On Mar 15, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Steve Pucci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Linux/gcc, the great majority of warnings is for a warning about > using %p in a printf with a void* argument, which IMHO is a bogus warning > that only gcc emits, and AFAICT can't be disabled without disabling the > other far-more-useful printf warnings. I wound up writing a script to > filter these out from my build logs rather than try to fix them all. > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As the LLDB build currently exists, there are a large number of warnings > which clutter the build. This is even worse on Linux when building with > gcc. > > > > I was wondering if there would be any objection to forcing errors on > warnings as they as they get cleaned up. This requires that the compiler > support marking certain warnings a errors (i.e. -Werror=*). clang and gcc > support many of these, and this would need to be conditionalised on > compiler support to ensure that no one is prevented from continuing to > build LLDB. > > > > LLVM actually has buildbots that build with -Werror which helps prevent > new errors from being integrated in clang and LLVM, unfortunately, the > buildbot situation for LLDB is not as pretty. As such, I was wondering if > it would be acceptable to push this down into the normal build. > > > > -- > > Saleem Abdulrasool > > compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
