On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Just -pedantic -Wno-long-long will do. You don't want to specify
> > > -ansi (or -std=anything); it is liable to cause the system headers to
> > > limit the set of provided declarations, which in turn will cause APR
> > > to be confused. All the useful standard-compliance warnings (that you
> > > don't get already with -Wall) come with -pedantic.
> >
> > Just to point out: Zack is *very* intimate with GCC. I say we take his
> > advice :-)
>
> Well, as long as you're listening to me :-) you might want to try out
> a few more warning switches:
>
> -Wwrite-strings gives all string constants the type 'const char *' (as
> they do in C++). This is liable to force you to add const qualifiers
> all over the program, but will expose bugs that are otherwise pretty
> much unfindable.
>
> -Wstrict-prototypes makes sure every function declaration is a
> prototype; -Wmissing-prototypes insists on a separate prototype for
> every function definition. The combination of the two effectively
> enforces a style where all functions are prototyped either at the top
> of the file or in a header. Some people don't like this, but it's the
> best way we've found to flush out type mismatches across files. (You
> do have to watch for external functions being declared in the source
> file instead of headers. I suppose we now have enough information to
> warn about that, too... hmm...)
>
> -Wcast-qual will tell you if you ever cast away const or volatile.
> This is not on by default because some people (including me) like to
> have write-once structures in malloc space, referred to after creation
> through const pointers, which eventually have to get freed -- and the
> call to free() must cast away the const. (I'd be delighted to hear a
> better way to approach this one.)
>
> -W turns on a grab bag of warnings that have moderate to high
> false-positive rates. Depending on your coding style, it may
> be more trouble than it's worth. I don't know Subversion
> style well enough to say.
>
> zw
>
I haven't actually submitted any patches to Subversion and I have a
little time to kill this weekend. I'll volunteer to turn on Zack's
warnings and submit patches for problems they point out. Sounds like a
bite-sized task, right?
I have gcc 2.95.2 on Mac OS X. Is that current enough to support the -W
flags you're suggesting Zack? If not, I can upgrade my Apple Developer
Tools which will get gcc 3.0 or 3.1 (I'm not sure which). I've been
avoiding that so far because of problems between vim & gcc 3.1 that have
been going around on the vim-dev list.
-David Mankin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 8 01:07:38 2002