On 03/09/16 12:08, ivy.foster@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, don't worry; I'm under no illusion that the pie-in-the-sky Subject line is anything that will happen in the near future, nor even necessarily a goal for the project (given just how finicky -Weverything is).
Basically, I'm wondering whether sporadic patches addressing the sorts of things "clang -Weverything" gripes about would be considered welcome contributions, or nitpicking. By "sporadic patches", I mean that any of this sort from me would come when I felt like working on a coding project but didn't have anything particularly in mind.
As a sample, I've made two patches addressing some of its earliest warnings. The first changes several headers to (say) #define IDENTIFIERS rather than _IDENTIFIERS. The second adds ALPM_ERR_OK = 0 to the _alpm_err_t enum. Some functions which return an _alpm_err_t return value were returning 0 on success, but there was no 0 value enumerated--not actively harmful, but still an oddity.
If this sort of thing isn't of interest, I definitely get it. I just figured that an RFC with patches attached would provide something more concrete to discuss than one without.
I am happy to accept these. When you fix a specific set of warnings from clang/gcc, you can add that specific warning flag (i.e. not -Weverything...) to our configure.ac at this section: # Enable or disable compiler warning flags AC_MSG_CHECKING(for excessive compiler warning flags) if test "x$warningflags" = "xyes" ; then AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) CFLAGS_ADD([-Wcast-align], [WARNING_CFLAGS]) CFLAGS_ADD([-Wclobbered], [WARNING_CFLAGS]) ... That way we will not regress in the future. Thanks, Allan