On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Samuel Adam <a...@certifound.com> wrote:
> A FAQ[2] isn’t enough, as we can see. > > To put it another way: Bug reporters should have probable cause before > they bug others. A compiler warning is only a reasonable articulable > suspicion. Note that “probable cause” doesn’t imply computer expertise; > “it crashes” is probable cause. But a compiler warning only means that a > dumb piece of melted sand (i.e., a computer) running a static analysis > suggested there might be perhaps something wrong with it, maybe. Not that > any actual misbehavior was observed. Relying on a compiler warning means > abdicating wetware to kneel in thrall at the feet of silicon dioxide. > It’s wrong and it’s stupid. > > N.b., I am not accusing hereby Mr. Black of so relying; I just happened to > reply to his message, because the uninitialized-memory trick seemed > apropos of his message and I think he as a C coder would duly appreciate > the argument (whether or not he agrees). But the original poster, Mr. > Arief, posted an apparent copy-and-paste of such warnings with aught other > said but a helpful link to where we can download MSVC Express. It happens > here every few months; I am sick of it, ten thousand other list readers > are probably sick of it, and it peeves the SQLite team sufficiently that > they have a FAQ[2,idem] on the topic. > Please forgive me from being a beginner and I am really sorry if I peeve SQLite team and list readers. But then, I think the FAQ[2] really needs to be updated because my original post was motivated by the following sentence: "Compiler warnings only arise from compilers that the developers do not have access to." The above sentence should probably be removed and replaced with "For more information, please refer to our testing process[3]" linked to the corresponding web page[3]. > > [snip] > > If you're going to decide to ignore it then put a comment in the code > > that says "don't bother to use options X/Y/Z to look for warnings...we > > have chosen to ignore them". > > Much as I regularly take issue with other items therein, when both the > FAQ[2,idem] and another document thereby referenced[3] explain SQLite’s > position on compiler warnings, it is futile to expect that somebody who > missed that would read a source code comment. Did I mention the > FAQ[2,supra]? > > Very truly, > Now, I actually did read Testing Process Page[3] a few months back when I first knew about SQLite but unfortunately it was not carved into my brain since I didn't face any warning when compiling SQLite at that time. I have googled the warning I found and search the mailing list but did not find satisfying result. During my short time searching, I only found the FAQ[2] which again, I think should be revised to refer to Testing Process Page[3]. Did I mention that I actually read a bit of the code around the warning and thought of a way to fix it? Nah, I believe I haven't mention it. I gave up because I afraid my fix would actually introduce bugs. And unfortunately I didn't find/read Testing Process Page[3] during my recent search. Thank you, Afriza N. Arief [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg56813.html > [2] http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q17 > [3] http://www.sqlite.org/testing.html#staticanalysis _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
