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'm paranoid about my own codes. Would anyone mind me adding
"-
> 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
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 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
