On 04/18/2012 09:52 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Wednesday 18 of April 2012, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
MacOSX is one of the few platform that has consistently been built
with --enable-werror.
removing the benefit of it just for a micro-optimization seems an
overkill.
I agree with Norbert here. The more tinderboxes we have that (continue
to) use --enable-werror, the better. (If with significantly different
compilers, even better.)
I have no problem with different, I have a problem with broken. There's no
benefit of fixing warnings for a compiler that is 6 years old. If the warning
were valid, recent gcc would emit it too.
We have to live with broken compilers. And on Mac OS X we are pretty
much bound to that specific compiler instance.
With the >>= issue at hand, IMO the benefits (--enable-werror for Mac OS
X) outweigh the costs (sprinkle the code base with trivial "= T()" or
similar initializations).
Or does that mean I should enable WaE for the MSVC tinderbox too? That should
be some fun, with people even now not bothering to fix that build that much.
Yes, we should certainly --enable-werror there. The code base used to
be warning-free even for MSVC. Everything else is a regression.
Stephan
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.