[Xfce4-commits] r29924 - in xfce4-dev-tools/trunk: . m4macros
aliov at xfce.org
Wed May 20 09:55:44 CEST 2009
Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> On 05/20/2009 12:02 AM, Ali Abdallah wrote:
>> -Wdisabled-optimization: with this gcc will emit a warning if it cannot
>> optimize a piece code, because it is too complex or something, so one
>> can try to improve/simplify the code.
> Yeah, maybe. I don't see this as terribly useful, but it probably
> can't hurt. Well, I guess it could... it might break a -Werror build,
> even when you don't care to 'fix' the code (cuz, really, there's
> nothing actually wrong with it).
>> -Wwrite-strings: warning about writing on string constants.
> I considered this one, but unfortunately there are many functions (in
> glib, even, I believe) that take (char *) that really should take
> (const char *) where it doesn't actually modify the value and it's
> common to pass a string literal. It *would* be really great to use
> this, but it would cause too many spurious warnings. Doing ugly
> things like foot((char *)"bar"); to suppress the warning is just lame.
Right, like gtk_init_with_args.
>> -Wunreachable-code: gcc will emit a warning if it thinks that the code
>> will never be executed because of a condition that will never be
>> satisfied, sometimes it produces wrong warnings and one can discard them
>> safely after examining the code, but sometimes yes it tells you about a
>> code that will really never be executed (unless the CPU logical unit is
>> broken :) ).
> Nope, this is a bad idea. Macros like g_return_if_reached() and
> g_assert_if_reached() could trigger this.
>> -Winline, if a function cannot be inlined, but well we never use inline
>> functions in Xfce.
> Well, some of us do... I considered this one, but it's too variable
> and unknown as to whether or not a function will inline properly, and
> if you get this warning, it may not be remotely clear how to "fix" it
> (aside from just removing the 'inline' keyword). Having said that,
> gcc usually does a much better job of deciding when to inline a
> function than people do, so often it's better to just not use the
> 'inline' keyword.
> These are nice in theory, but remember that --enable-debug=full also
> adds -Werror to the list; personally I will never (unless I forget)
> check in code that doesn't compile with -Werror (on my machine at
> least). Adding in extra -W options is nice when they provide a clear
> benefit and aren't likely to throw spurious warnings, but when it's
> not really clear why code might cause a warning (like for
> -Wdisabled-optimization and -Winline), or when existing code can't
> help but cause the warnings (like -Wunreachable-code or
> -Wwrite-strings), they become a lot less useful.
> Thanks for looking into these, though... if there are others that
> look useful but low-risk, I'd certainly consider putting them in.
Yes i'm not saying that those should be added, it was just a thought, i
didn't see any other flag in gcc warning flag doc that can be added also.
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
Send unlimited messages for free to all destinations with DBus.
More information about the Xfce4-dev