Hi,
Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Stephan,
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:04:47 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Sorry for the (may be stupid) question, but why not just change
OSL_VERIFY to emit nothing, in case OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL == 0? I would expect
that only weird code would relay on the evaluation in
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On unxsoli4 and unxsols4 PRODUCT builds, OSL_VERIFY(a == b) causes a
spurious warning The result of a comparison is unused (because the
argument of OSL_VERIFY is always executed, even for OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL ==
0). Instead of disabling the corresponding unxsoli4 and
Speaking of STLPort: It seems that these incredible number of
ANACHRONISM warnings regarding missing typenames on unxsols4 and
unxsoli4 can be fixed with a single line of change in STLPort. I'll
suggest that we fix this one in another CWS which has a chance to get in
OOo 2.0, if Martin
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
On unxsoli4 and unxsols4 PRODUCT builds, OSL_VERIFY(a == b) causes a
spurious warning The result of a comparison is unused (because the
argument of OSL_VERIFY is always executed, even for OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL ==
0). Instead of
Hi Kay,
Sorry for the (may be stupid) question, but why not just change
OSL_VERIFY to emit nothing, in case OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL == 0? I would expect
that only weird code would relay on the evaluation in case of a zero
debug level.
Why weird? The alternative is something like
#if
Stephan,
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Maybe we could, but *not* on CWS warnings01. We already have enough to
do here to get rid of all warnings. If we take the burden of any
additional clean up (like unifying OSL_ENSURE and OSL_ASSERT) that is
not directly necessary to get rid of warnings, we
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Speaking of STLPort: It seems that these incredible number of
ANACHRONISM warnings regarding missing typenames on unxsols4 and
unxsoli4 can be fixed with a single line of change in STLPort. I'll
suggest that we fix this one in another CWS which has a chance to get
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
3 OSL_VERIFY
On unxsoli4 and unxsols4 PRODUCT builds, OSL_VERIFY(a == b) causes a
spurious warning The result of a comparison is unused (because the
argument of OSL_VERIFY is always executed, even for OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL ==
0). Instead of disabling the corresponding
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
Hi Kay,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Sorry for the (may be stupid) question, but why not just change
OSL_VERIFY to emit nothing, in case OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL == 0? I would
expect that only weird code would relay on the evaluation in case of a
zero debug level.
Hi,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
It is the very purpose of OSL_VERIFY to evaluate the expression
regardless of debug level. For expressions without side effect
OSL_ASSERT/OSL_ENSURE should be used instead.
It is used to avoid cluttering the code with
Joerg,
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
Hi,
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Joerg Barfurth wrote:
I agree. If they signal runtime conditions that prevent normal
operations, they can be converted to exceptions, otherwise they should
be dealt with or propagated as approriate. (I think
As anounced elsewhere, we want to discuss here all C/C++ compiler
warnings we stumble over on CWS warnings01 and that we want to disable.
Now, I have three issues to discuss:
1 STLport
I already wrote this before, but maybe it did not get the necessary
attention. To ensure that all
12 matches
Mail list logo
