Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings

Posted Feb 16, 2016 11:46 UTC (Tue) by juliank (guest, #45896)
In reply to: Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings by epa
Parent article: Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings

-Werror-version=gcc-5.3.1 would also break things, as the warnings enabled in an early version may be detected in more places in later versions, for example, due to changes in the optimiser. It's not realistic to prevent that.

Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings

Posted Feb 16, 2016 15:06 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (2 responses)

Good point. I guess you would need to make warnings fatal only if they can be detected before optimization. (Personally I can't see the value in fatal warnings, I'd rather just make sure somebody is paying attention to the build logs, but if maintainers insist on them they need some defensive measure like this.)

Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings

Posted Feb 16, 2016 22:21 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

> Personally I can't see the value in fatal warnings

Having had some warnings that I couldn't get rid of, it can be a real problem, but I'd rather have fatal warnings switched on if I can. That way, I know my code is as clean as possible, and having taken over code that originally had minimal warnings and lots of subtle bugs, that's the way I like it ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Wielaard: Looking forward to GCC6 – Many new warnings

Posted Feb 22, 2016 10:07 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Oh I agree, I certainly see the value in making sure there are zero warnings during development - I just don't see why the source tarball given to distributions and end users needs to have fatal warnings set. There may well be warnings which pop up on some other architecture, but they are probably just warnings rather than hard errors, and it is the user's or packager's choice whether to treat them as serious enough to abandon the build.