I'm quite surprised of what you're saying. I don't know what exact platforms you've tested and which compilers. But I'm working on a simulator and a library of generic data structures which are more than 70.000 lines of code compiling without any warning since gcc-2.95 until gcc-4.1.2 and for several platforms (32 or 64bits) : Linux (Debian, Fedora, CentOS, Ubuntu?), Solaris, Mac OS X and Windows (Cygwin). maybe we've not been confronted to all the tricky gcc warnings ;)
Regards, Sebastien Tandel Joerg Mayer wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:01:20PM -0700, Stephen Fisher wrote: > >>> So here comes the buildbot into the scene. If we would use a compiler >>> option like "stop on warnings" (or "treat warnings as errors" or >>> alike), it would become at least much more obvious if new warnings >>> were added - the buildbot will get "red". This will also make the time >>> when a warning is noticed much nearer to the time the code was >>> added/changed - currently fixing a warning once added is often done >>> much later than it was introduced (making the fix unnecessarily >>> difficult). >>> >>> An incremental way to introduce this could be: >>> >> Good ideas! >> > > No, it won't work. I've spent many many hours in the past to get rid of > compiler warnings and it just won't work. While we definitely should try > to get rid of some warnings, fixing warnings on one platform may introduce > warnings on other platforms (or even gcc versions). > > >> With automake, we just need to put AM_CFLAGS = -Werror in the >> Makefile.am file in each directory that we're working on. >> > > Yes, it can be technically done, but not in reality. > > >>> So what's the opinion about this way to improve the Wireshark code >>> base? Are we willing to produce only warning free code and fixing >>> warnings that appear on the buildbot? >>> > > Not possible. > > >> I'm willing to work on the Unix warnings. >> > > I've been doing that for a rather long time and mostly (but not > completely) stopped doing that about a year ago. Attached you'll find a > rather hackish script that I use to "classify" the warnings. Maybe > someone is willing to convert this into something less inefficient and > much more readable... > > Ciao > Joerg > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev