On Tuesday 07 August 2012 19:37:59 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El Dimarts, 7 d'agost de 2012, a les 16:56:01, Kevin Ottens va escriure: > > Hello, > > > > Looks like it got overlooked. ;-) > > > > On Saturday 07 July 2012 12:20:01 Benjamin Port wrote: > > > Currently when we build kdelibs there are lots of warnings. That's why I > > > suggest to add a remove all warnings in the definition of done. > > > > > > But we can't remove all warnings, indeed some warnings come from moc > > > file > > > (deprecated slots) and from unit test where we want to test the behavior > > > of > > > deprecated method. > > > > > > For the first one I don't have any idea to manage that (and I think > > > there > > > is no solution) > > > For unit test we can add to gcc the -Wno-deprecated-declarations option. > > > Perhaps we can do that by adding a test macro defined in ecm. > > > > > > So I suggest to have the following definition of done: > > > "Remove all warning except in moc files (deprecated slot)" > > > > > > Yes that is lot of work but I think if we manage to do that, in the > > > future > > > we can easely continu to have a warningless code. > > > > I generally agree with that proposal. I would completely welcome such a > > > > move, that said it raises a couple of points: > > * If we make such a change, the situation regarding the unit tests should > > > > be investigated, and if a macro is needed in ECM it has to be in place > > before the change for the definition of done is applied; > > > > * It generally raises the follow up question of the level of warning we > > > > want to force, right now by default I got -Wall + some extra warnings[*] > > is > > it enforced for everyone right now? How far to we want to go? What about - > > pedantic? > > > > * And the extra question, once we got there, do we want -Werror? > > > > (apparently not doable because of deprecated slots though?) > > > > I remember David and Laurent pushing the bar quite a bit regarding the > > warnings but then they gave up because people kept not caring enough about > > those... -Werror by default would help there I think. :-) > > -Werror is the worst thing ever, i've been forced to use it at work for some > projects and it is a hideous thing that breaks the compilation half of the > time while you are developing just because you left an unused variable > somethwere, please don't force it on us.
Yep, I've had too many issue with -Werror breaking compilation for people with a newer version of gcc than me, which suddenly got better at detecting a given issue. I'm strongly against -Werror by default. But turning it on locally is of course the best way to implement what we're talking about here: cleaning a framework of all its warnings. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. KDE Frameworks 5 _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
