[Insight-developers] A massive number of new warnings

[David Cole]

Actually the easiest way to get the point across (and win enemies and
influence people) is to set the flag that treats warnings as errors.

That'll grab their attention!!

(Of course, you might not be able to get past the Utilities directory
in the next decade, but.....)


:-)
David


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Hans Johnson <hans-johnson at uiowa.edu> wrote:
> I was toying with the idea of adding something like is shown at the bottom
> of this message.
>
> We could safely build up a larger set of "recommended" compiler flags for
> each of the release types rather than just "-g" and "-O3".
>
> I think that -Wall should be the default flag, and that developers have to
> explicitly turn it off.  That way it's not just the 4 of us triaging all
> these complier warnings.
>
> NOTE:  The code below is not working, but I think it gets the point across.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
> #To create a portable build system, it is best to not test for platforms,
> but to test for features.
> #
> #Instead of testing "if Windows then do this", test for "if the
> -Wno-invalid-offsetof flag works then use it". You can do that with the
> CheckCCompilerFlag module, for example:
>
> include(CheckCCompilerFlag)
> include(CheckCXXCompilerFlag)
>
> set(C_RELEASE_DESIRED_FLAGS "")
> set(CXX_RELEASE_DESIRED_FLAGS "")
>
> # -Wall
> check_c_compiler_flag(-Wall HAS_ALL_WARNINGS_C)
> if (HAS_ALL_WARNINGS_C)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wall")
> endif()
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-Wall HAS_ALL_WARNINGS_CXX)
> if (HAS_ALL_WARNINGS_CXX)
>    set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wall")
> endif()
>
> ## -pedantic
> check_c_compiler_flag(-pedantic HAS_PEDANTIC_C)
> if (HAS_PEDANTIC_C)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -pedantic")
> endif()
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-pedantic HAS_PEDANTIC_CXX)
> if (HAS_PEDANTIC_CXX)
>    set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -pedantic")
> endif()
>
> ## -Wextra
> check_c_compiler_flag(-Wextra HAS_EXTRA_WARNINGS_C)
> if (HAS_EXTRA_WARNINGS_C)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wextra")
> endif()
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-Wextra HAS_EXTRA_WARNINGS_CXX)
> if (HAS_EXTRA_WARNINGS_CXX)
>    set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wextra")
> endif()
>
> ## -Wshadow
> check_c_compiler_flag(-Wshadow HAS_SHADOW_WARNINGS_C)
> if (HAS_SHADOW_WARNINGS_C)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS  "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wshadow")
> endif()
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-Wshadow HAS_SHADOW_WARNINGS_CXX)
> if (HAS_SHADOW_WARNINGS_CXX)
>    set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wshadow")
> endif()
>
> ## -Wlong-long  We should not use the long-long type in ITK
> check_c_compiler_flag(-Wlong-long HAS_LONG_LONG_WARNINGS_C)
> if (HAS_LONG_LONG_WARNINGS_C)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wlong-long")
> endif()
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-Wlong-long HAS_LONG_LONG_WARNINGS_CXX)
> if (HAS_LONG_LONG_WARNINGS_CXX)
>    set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wlong-long")
> endif()
>
>
> check_cxx_compiler_flag(-Wno-invalid-offsetof HAS_NO_INVALID_OFFSETOF)
> if (HAS_NO_INVALID_OFFSETOF)
>    set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -Wno-invalid-offsetof")
> endif()
>
> message(${CMAKE_C_FLAGS})
> message(${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS})
>
>
>
> On 1/6/11 2:55 PM, "Luis Ibanez" <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>
>> I just added -Wall and -Wextra to the builds in
>> zion, thurmite and eldorado.
>>
>> It's time to follow Bill L. in the zero-warning campaign      :-)
>>
>>
>>      Luis
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Sean McBride <sean at rogue-research.com> wrote:
>>> That build is only using -Wall and -Wextra, which my gcc dashboards also
>>> use, and yet mine show a much smaller number of warnings.  Strange that
>>> a newer gcc would not warn where an older gcc does, one reason could be
>>> that they were false positives in the older version.  In any case, there
>>> are less warnings than it seems since some are caused by headers and so
>>> repeated in many source files.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 17:01:46 -0500, Bill Lorensen said:
>>>
>>>> I think they are valid warnings.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Hans Johnson <hans-johnson at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>>>> This looks like the Insight-gcc-3.3. Has a definitive decision been made
>>>>> regarding compilers less than 4?  I thought that less than 3.4 was excluded
>>>>> because of incompatibility issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Hans J. Johnson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> 200 Hawkins Drive
> T205 BT, The University of Iowa
> Iowa City, IA 52242
>
> hans-johnson at uiowa.edu
> PHONE: 319 353 8587
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>