On 29.09.2017 22:33, Scott Robison wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
> <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, Scott Robison wrote:
>>> >> The problem is that there is no one best practice for resolving all
>>> >> such warnings in a way that makes all compilers happy. It is possible
>>> >> to fix all the warnings for one platform, then move on to the next
>>> >> platform and fix all its warnings, and return to the original platform
>>> >> and discover that new warnings have been introduced.
>> > My own experience has been that it is possible to write valid C code which
>> > does not produce warnings at high warning levels on just about any standard
>> > C compiler. It is not necessarily a case of "whack a mole". The most
>> > annoying exception is the Microsoft Visual C Compiler, which produces
>> > deprecation warnings for standard functions.
>> > One does need to be very careful when fixing compiler warnings so as to not
>> > introduce new bugs. The most dangerous warnings to work on are those
>> > involving signed vs unsigned types.
> Except for the fact that the OP called for maximum pedantic warnings.
> In that case, you can't reliably fix all the warnings, because
> different compilers have different ideas of what maximum means.
> In this very thread there is a warning from GCC about
> #if SQLITE_4_BYTE_ALIGNED_MALLOC
What can be wrong for _any_ of the compilers if you will define
SQLITE_4_BYTE_ALIGNED_MALLOC as 0 in sqlite3.h? It's so simple. I think
it should only get better for all platforms and compilers )
sqlite-users mailing list