[Insight-developers] Chasing some ITK Bug tracker bugs -- silly 'defensive' coding == 100s of warnings.

[Bradley Lowekamp]

Hello again,

I believe I bought this issue up at the TCON this week. These warning are on the dashboard here:

http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewBuildError.php?type=1&buildid=755396

I presume these are the same ones.

If I recall the code there was also many large blocks of "#if 0" too. There is definitely room to some cleanup there. I'd suggest file a bug to track the issue, before you get started.

Brad

On Oct 21, 2010, at 4:39 PM, kent williams wrote:

> I'm compiling with the following gcc flags, to try and verify that ITK4 has
> no problems with word width in 64-bit compiles.
> 
> CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING=-Wall -W -Wshadow -Wunused-variable
> -Wunused-parameter -Wunused-function -Wunused -Wno-system-headers
> -Wwrite-strings -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage -Wno-deprecated
> -Woverloaded-virtual
> 
> But I ran into this construct that happens over and over again, and it kinda
> blows my mind:
> 
> for(unsigned j = 0; j < something; j++)
>  {
>  assert(j >= 0);
>  ... actual code ...
>  }
> 
> There are dozens and dozens of asserts in ITK that check to make unsigned
> integers don't have negative values.
> 
> Can I start a topic on gerrit to take them out?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> 
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> 
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
> 
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> 
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers