Janis Papanagnou writes:
>On 26.10.2024 17:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/26/24 10:07, Vir Campestris wrote:
>>>
>>> I have in the past had coding standards that require you to fix all
>>> warnings. After all, sometimes they do matter.
>>
>> I disapprove of that policy. A conforming implementation is free to warn
>> about anything, even about your failure to use taboo words as
>> identifiers. While that's a deliberately silly example, I've seen a fair
>> number of warnings that had little or no justification.
>> The purpose of warnings is to tell you that there might be a problem. If
>> the compiler is certain that there's a problem, it should generate an
>> error message, not a warning. Therefore, treating warnings as if they
>> were error messages means that you're not doing your job, as the
>> developer, to determine whether or not the code is actually problematic.
>
>We had such a null-warning policy as well (in a C++ context) and it
>served us well.
Yes, we have a similar policy. Works well. In the odd case where
one cannot eliminate the warning, a simple compiler option to not
test that particulary condition for that particular compilation unit
is a straightforward solution.
|
|