-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 NetBSD builds with GCC 4.8.2 and it emits few warnings for LLDB.
Before enabling -Werror please first iterate over build logs and help to squash them. For example it detects undefined behavior IIRC for a Darwin code part. On 16.02.2016 20:01, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev wrote: > You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global > policy, but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're > not warning free right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free > without disabling some warnings (which I don't want to do either) > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer > <tbergham...@google.com <mailto:tbergham...@google.com>> wrote: > > If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can > decide it on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who > will be responsible for fixing a warning introduced by a change in > llvm or clang causing a build failure because of a warning > (especially when the fix is non trivial)? > > > I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here. The > person making the change would be responsible for ensuring that > nothing breaks as a result of their change. The same situation > exists when working on interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a > warning introduced by a change in LLVM may be non-trivial in > clang. > > Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option. If it > is deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state > so and not do this. > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool > <compn...@compnerd.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer > <tbergham...@google.com> wrote: > > I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think > enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons: * We are using a lot > of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning free on all > of them might not be feasible especially for the less used, older > gcc versions. * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if > we enable it then a clang/llvm change can break our build with a > warning when it is hard to justify a revert and a fix might not be > trivial. > > > Err, sorry. I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some > (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and > clang). Yes, a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, > though the same thing exists for the LLVM/clang dependency. Since > this would be on the build bots, it should get resolved rather > quickly. > > In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying > everybody should write warning free code for lldb (I think it > already kind of exists) and we as a community try to ensure it > during code review and with fixing the possible things what slip > through. In the longer term I would be happy to see -Werror turned > on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up with lldb but > making this change will require a lot of discussion and might get > some push back. > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb > now. There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 > on Linux, and the build is clean of warnings with clang. > > There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in > asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU > incompatibility. > > Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep > the build clean going forward? > > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org > > > > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWw4isAAoJEEuzCOmwLnZsR+kP/iCRzeJSzPFvjUZ9zwIz5HBo 6i+hoaxHzSOy0PS7936KiaIhlvm5zumFEBKZcrWvTAdnR8aIAPqpSFUp95LGHX6A LDrE/pXlXXjCHelKeqlfqcFoxg0Jwl4UzvEL0M5PhEAykPs/K9/CXIAvOZNi/lue UcYPxZpM+4cNoTFIm7MdvQAD3MwO1QTA0qkXIKiBT5WeKbHGOlEP0mrrpJSp2aUl a+2fodZGr38HqHsQ5LGLVsBQsXmisvsuwAtQodGj3WuI+75r6wko/F7QdRh1sXAB nC4Lan0BX23ji38wVse4Z4iRUpXcWCTZgf+/TcjfPuog37Ay95WuKurou8b3BFvn LFBSMhcs3L/RiBArjvklymvEQlUwKaZ4G09Audxxpi8HvGfNFMeTqSI+Dvz/wAC7 9M7BoJpbE67pF1ZaUcQx36ULFzMxNzAdSoEeNKHUsS0uftzMg0RFxRDFY3THEbc5 cVLknKznHWCGwLCT6DCw2+a+rkLZNlViwTjFNyReBYNZ0+7kG6eG0SmwZjAa2Ip3 0X9YI0vwyRfQd5YfdFGJhXyJY9rz9+th7XxOVvEAW9UqN+dLza7NkyyzeEURG6NB kAhEZkQr/9TfX9DLM1e8MW9Gi7GzRMV4W6AEQGbFHykO2eiCcAR340yKZuvH/OWU kJqxmIhDAEr2kvPSfIEJ =W6zZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
