Re: [Tinycc-devel] Can you consider to add -Werror option?

[Christian Jullien]

Currently, there is no (or very limited) number of warnings. No warning at
all on RPi, on Fedora 20 x86_64 on Windows x86/X86_64
IMHO, it's worth to chase them all and then add -Werror which does not
introduce new warnings to test. It only refuses new changes that add new
warnings.

I strongly advocate for this option which improves code quality.

Christian 

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
grischka
Sent: dimanche 9 février 2014 20:33
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Can you consider to add -Werror option?

Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> In the case of tinycc there are many unused-variable due to 
> conditionals so that kind of warning ought to be ignored.

I don't see any such on win32 currently except
     tccelf.c:1511:14: warning: 'fill_got_entry' defined but not used which
seems you just have introduced. ;=)

> There are also a couple of place with ignored return value which 
> triggers some warning and I know grischka is against the idea of 
> adding (void) in front of such function call (I personally like the 
> idea to explicitly says we ignore a return value).

Whatever.  Just don't forget the TinyCC principle.

M2c,

--- grischka


_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel