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
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Kamil Rytarowski 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 und
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Zachary Turner 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
-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.
On 16.02.2016 20:01, Zacha
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 A
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer
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 be
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)?
On
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Tamas Berghammer
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 e
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Tamas Berghammer via lldb-dev
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 no
On 16 February 2016 at 06:02, Saleem Abdulrasool via lldb-dev
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 instance
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 n
11 matches
Mail list logo
