On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> Two questions:
>
> I've mostly been using -Wconversion privately to catch the occasional
> 32<->64 bit conversion bug... but I just graded the work of a student
> whose results got destroyed by an inadvertent implicit "double->int",
> and now
I concur with "for" on dbg/devel
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Cody Permann wrote:
> I'll vote "for" on dbg/devel modes. At least until things are cleaned up.
>
> Cody
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Derek Gaston wrote:
>>
>> > I guess I'
I'll vote "for" on dbg/devel modes. At least until things are cleaned up.
Cody
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Derek Gaston wrote:
>
> > I guess I'll vote against adding this to opt: but it's not a strong vote.
>
> My vote "for" isn't a strong vote, e
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Derek Gaston wrote:
> I guess I'll vote against adding this to opt: but it's not a strong vote.
My vote "for" isn't a strong vote, either. Ben seems fairly neutral,
so unless someone else chimes in on the "for" side I guess I'll leave
it be.
No objections from anyone to me
I guess I'll vote against adding this to opt: but it's not a strong vote.
My main worry is that we'll spew tons of warnings from includes further
upstream...
Derek
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 8, 2013, at 4:13 PM, "Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311)"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 4:38 PM,
> On Dec 8, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "Roy Stogner" wrote:
>
> We don't currently add compiler warning flags to compilation in opt
> mode. Is there a reason why not? I'd have expected the extra
> compilation time spent generating warning flags to be dwarfed by the
> optimization work itself.
No, the
