arrow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [C++] BUILD_WARNING_LEVEL=EVERYTHING?
Date Mon, 04 Mar 2019 04:11:01 GMT
No opposition from me

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:02 PM Micah Kornfield <emkornfield@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm ok with that.  I think some of the conversion warnings might be useful
> (I know I've had bugs in other code that would have been caught with
> them).  Would people be opposed if I tried to go through and cleanup the
> EVERYTHING warnings even if more might creep in?
>
> Thanks,
> Micah
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 3:27 PM Wes McKinney <wesmckinn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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 <antoine@python.org> 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] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/3793
> > > >
> >

Mime
View raw message