I think the Linux-x86_64 build using clang is mostly warning free (1 warning on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lldb-x86_64-ubuntu-14.04-cmake) but it isn't true for most of the other configuration.
I think -Werror can be enabled on the buildbots on a case by case bases depending on the decision of the owner/maintainer. The main reason I think it this way because a change like this will increase the number of build failures what will give more work to the buildbot maintainer primarily because most buildbot don't send out failure messages (flakiness) and I am not convinced that the community will fix some warning based on a report from a build bot. As a partial maintainer of 5 different buildbots I don't want to enable -Werror on any them as I think it will be too much additional maintenance work compared to the benefit unless we enforce -Werror on local builds as well (e.g. use -Werror if compiling with clang on an x86_64 platform). On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:19 AM Saleem Abdulrasool <compn...@compnerd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> NetBSD builds with GCC 4.8.2 and it emits few warnings for LLDB. >> >> Before enabling -Werror please first iterate over build logs and help >> to squash them. For example it detects undefined behavior IIRC for a >> Darwin code part. > > > Interesting. On Linux, lldb had many warnings, and over time, I've > managed to get mots of them cleaned up. Right now, there are a couple of > -Wtype-limits warnings and one -Wformat warning. Is there a build bot that > can be used to monitor what those warnings are? If there aren't any > buildbots, then this would be of no consequence since we wouldn't turn it > on for user builds. > > I wish I had caught what I wrote versus what I was thinking before hitting > send :-(. > > >> >> On 16.02.2016 20:01, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev wrote: >> > You're talking about doing it on a per-bot basis and not a global >> > policy, but just throwing in that on the MSVC side at least, we're >> > not warning free right now and it's not trivial tog et warning free >> > without disabling some warnings (which I don't want to do either) >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev >> > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer >> > <tbergham...@google.com <mailto:tbergham...@google.com>> wrote: >> > >> > If you want to enable it only on the bots then I think we can >> > decide it on a bot by bot bases. For me the main question is who >> > will be responsible for fixing a warning introduced by a change in >> > llvm or clang causing a build failure because of a warning >> > (especially when the fix is non trivial)? >> > >> > >> > I think that the same policy as LLVM/clang should apply here. The >> > person making the change would be responsible for ensuring that >> > nothing breaks as a result of their change. The same situation >> > exists when working on interfaces that effect clang: a fix for a >> > warning introduced by a change in LLVM may be non-trivial in >> > clang. >> > >> > Just to be clear, I'm merely suggesting this as an option. If it >> > is deemed too burdensome by most of the common committers, we state >> > so and not do this. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:31 PM Saleem Abdulrasool >> > <compn...@compnerd.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer >> > <tbergham...@google.com> wrote: >> > >> > I would be happy if we can keep lldb warning free but I don't think >> > enabling -Werror is a good idea for 2 reasons: * We are using a lot >> > of different compiler and keeping the codebase warning free on all >> > of them might not be feasible especially for the less used, older >> > gcc versions. * Neither llvm nor clang have -Werror enabled so if >> > we enable it then a clang/llvm change can break our build with a >> > warning when it is hard to justify a revert and a fix might not be >> > trivial. >> > >> > >> > Err, sorry. I meant by default on the build bots (IIRC, some >> > (many?) of the build bots do build with -Werror for LLVM and >> > clang). Yes, a new warning in clang could cause issues in LLDB, >> > though the same thing exists for the LLVM/clang dependency. Since >> > this would be on the build bots, it should get resolved rather >> > quickly. >> > >> > In short term I would prefer to just create a policy saying >> > everybody should write warning free code for lldb (I think it >> > already kind of exists) and we as a community try to ensure it >> > during code review and with fixing the possible things what slip >> > through. In the longer term I would be happy to see -Werror turned >> > on for llvm and clang first and then we can follow up with lldb but >> > making this change will require a lot of discussion and might get >> > some push back. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev >> > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > It seems that enabling -Werror by default is within reach for lldb >> > now. There currently are three warnings that remain with gcc 5.1 >> > on Linux, and the build is clean of warnings with clang. >> > >> > There are two instances of type range limitations on comparisons in >> > asserts, and one instance of string formatting which has a GNU >> > incompatibility. >> > >> > Is there any interest in enabling -Werror by default to help keep >> > the build clean going forward? >> > >> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing >> > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >> > >> > >> > >> > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing >> > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing >> > list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org >> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v2 >> >> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWw4isAAoJEEuzCOmwLnZsR+kP/iCRzeJSzPFvjUZ9zwIz5HBo >> 6i+hoaxHzSOy0PS7936KiaIhlvm5zumFEBKZcrWvTAdnR8aIAPqpSFUp95LGHX6A >> LDrE/pXlXXjCHelKeqlfqcFoxg0Jwl4UzvEL0M5PhEAykPs/K9/CXIAvOZNi/lue >> UcYPxZpM+4cNoTFIm7MdvQAD3MwO1QTA0qkXIKiBT5WeKbHGOlEP0mrrpJSp2aUl >> a+2fodZGr38HqHsQ5LGLVsBQsXmisvsuwAtQodGj3WuI+75r6wko/F7QdRh1sXAB >> nC4Lan0BX23ji38wVse4Z4iRUpXcWCTZgf+/TcjfPuog37Ay95WuKurou8b3BFvn >> LFBSMhcs3L/RiBArjvklymvEQlUwKaZ4G09Audxxpi8HvGfNFMeTqSI+Dvz/wAC7 >> 9M7BoJpbE67pF1ZaUcQx36ULFzMxNzAdSoEeNKHUsS0uftzMg0RFxRDFY3THEbc5 >> cVLknKznHWCGwLCT6DCw2+a+rkLZNlViwTjFNyReBYNZ0+7kG6eG0SmwZjAa2Ip3 >> 0X9YI0vwyRfQd5YfdFGJhXyJY9rz9+th7XxOVvEAW9UqN+dLza7NkyyzeEURG6NB >> kAhEZkQr/9TfX9DLM1e8MW9Gi7GzRMV4W6AEQGbFHykO2eiCcAR340yKZuvH/OWU >> kJqxmIhDAEr2kvPSfIEJ >> =W6zZ >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > > -- > Saleem Abdulrasool > compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
