lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ideas
Excerpts from mail: 9-May-96 Re: ideas by "J. Sean Connell"@connor 
> Why not do what I do when I wanna be paranoid about type checking and
> other pedanticities and compile with -Wall, redirect it to a file, and
> then go hack it till it compiles without any warnings of any kind?

Have you looked at the differences between using gcc -Wall and g++
(without -Wall)? It really does let a lot of things slip by. From
init/main.c,
g++ caught several additional types of (small?) errors: not handling
values falling through switch statements, comparisons between signed and
unsigned ints, unused parameters galore, and "illegal" conversion from
int (*)(void*) to int(*)(char*). While none of these are really
critical and C probably handles them all for us, it wouldn't hurt to
make the types more clear and attempt to handle illegal inputs to
procedures. Makes reading the code and tracking down bugs easier.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.566 / U:1.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site