arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <>
Date Sun, 03 Mar 2019 23:26:52 GMT
I'm of the same mind as Antoine on this. I think it's useful to look
at the EVERYTHING warnings periodically, but it is enough effort to
keep things simultaneously building cleanly with gcc, clang, and MSVC,
that I would prefer to maintain the status quo until it can be
demonstrated to be a problem (and even then, it just might be that we
add more specific warnings that we care about to the CHECKIN warning
level). The clang CHECKIN warnings catch some definitely bad things
like missing virtual dtors etc.

- Wes

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 3:38 AM Antoine Pitrou <> wrote:
> Hmm... There are enough warnings that need pampering in the default
> settings that I don't think we want to go the full length of enabling
> all warnings.  Sometimes it's a PITA to get code to compile cleanly on
> all platforms.
> If compiler writers had a more reasonable judgement when it comes to
> designing and enabling warnings, I would perhaps revise my position ;-)
> Regards
> Antoine.
> Le 03/03/2019 à 04:47, Micah Kornfield a écrit :
> > As part of trying to fix the mingw C++ build [1], I tried compiling with
> > BUILD_WARNING_LEVEL=EVERYTHING and it seems like it highlights a lot of
> > possible warnings that aren't in CHECKIN.   Have we not turned on the
> > additional warnings because there was too much to fix at the time this was
> > added?  Or is a conscious decision to ignore some warnings?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Micah
> >
> > [1]
> >

View raw message