Treat warnings as errors ?
-
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Most of them are unused variable warnings
Why don't you just remove those unused variables then ? If it is an argument of one of your function and you can't remove it (e.g. virtual function), do not name it:
void MyFunction(int)
{
// Code here
}Cédric Moonen Software developer
Charting control [v1.4] OpenGL game tutorial in C++I always prefer
void MyFunction(int param)
{
// Code hereUNREFEERENCED_PARAMETER(param);
}To me, that says "I made a conscious decision to ignore the variable", rather than "I forgot to use it". You also get to keep the name of the variable, which (you would hope) would include some semantic information in the name itself.
-
true but that's c# only I have to work in vb.net and unless I'm mistaking there is no such a 'code' in vb.net I could alter the project file as explaned here: http://www.helixoft.com/blog/archives/31[^] but then I'd rather leave them as warnings and check (and correct them if possible) them whenever one pops up
TDDragon wrote:
that's c# only
and C++
-
TDDragon wrote:
that's c# only
and C++
Yeah sorry forgot about that one ;P its been over 3 years since I done anything in C++ so I'm a bit rusty on that language (really should look into it again)
-
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Most of them are unused variable warnings
Why don't you just remove those unused variables then ? If it is an argument of one of your function and you can't remove it (e.g. virtual function), do not name it:
void MyFunction(int)
{
// Code here
}Cédric Moonen Software developer
Charting control [v1.4] OpenGL game tutorial in C++Nice, and what about
HFONT CreateFont(int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,LPCTSTR);at least names suggest something more about the possible usage (!)2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
Compilers don't warn The Chuck Norris, The Chuch Norris warns them. If compilers don't fix the errors themselves, The Chuch Norris round house kicks them to 0xC0000005.
---------------------------------------------------------- Every nation state's armed forces call themselves 'Defence', makes me wonder why there are conflicts in the world.
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
No I don't, but then the only errors I get are VC6 STL warnings on the length of the names. Well, those are the only ones I get at level 3, at level 4 there are lots but it's a legacy project which is too big to sort out. :(
-
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Most of them are unused variable warnings
Why don't you just remove those unused variables then ? If it is an argument of one of your function and you can't remove it (e.g. virtual function), do not name it:
void MyFunction(int)
{
// Code here
}Cédric Moonen Software developer
Charting control [v1.4] OpenGL game tutorial in C++I prefer:
void MyFunction(int /*my_arg*/)
{
// Code here
}Software Zen:
delete this; -
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Most of them are unused variable warnings
Why don't you just remove those unused variables then ? If it is an argument of one of your function and you can't remove it (e.g. virtual function), do not name it:
void MyFunction(int)
{
// Code here
}Cédric Moonen Software developer
Charting control [v1.4] OpenGL game tutorial in C++void MyFunction(int /*iMyValue*/)
{
// Code here
}at least reminds you what the variable name was
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
We try not to have warnings (or lint issues for that matter) in our code in the first place. When they creep in (which will inevitably happen, especially during major changes), they are removed shortly afterwards. However, in my experience "Treat warnings as errors" is a great way to annoy your teammates - especically if they are less meticulous in fixing warnings.
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Nice, and what about
HFONT CreateFont(int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,LPCTSTR);at least names suggest something more about the possible usage (!)2 bugs found. > recompile ... 65534 bugs found. :doh:
emilio_grv wrote:
Nice, and what about HFONT CreateFont(int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,int,LPCTSTR); at least names suggest something more about the possible usage (!)
Some remarks: 1) the problem occurs when you define your own function with some parameters and do not use all of them inside your function. Suppose that you want to provide a global CreateFont function, then it doesn't make any sense at all to provide so many parameters but not use a single one inside the CreateFont function. It seems wrong to me, because the user can provide whatever parameters, the function will not use them. So why do you need to provide them ? 2) There are some cases where you can't avoid that: like for example you have a virtual function in a base class that you want to specialize in the child class but do not use all parameters in the function. In that case, your parameters are still named in the prototype declared in the base class. 3) Nothing prevents you to give a name to the parameter in the function prototype but no name in the function definition. But I agree, the other propositions also make sense (using the UNREFERECED_PARAMETER macro or commenting their names).
Cédric Moonen Software developer
Charting control [v1.4] OpenGL game tutorial in C++ -
I can't speak for others, but I personally always do. I do know that sometimes (especially VC6's STL code), library headers etc produce warnings, but I always think it's worth wrapping #pragma's around such situations to disable the warnings. Having code compile clean with /W4 /WX is a very useful baseline, potential breakage is instantly spotted. I have to admit I take it further as well by using Gimpel's PC Lint and Microsoft's own C++ static analysis (/analyze) tools in VC 2005 and later. Mike
Hello Mike - fancy bumping into you here! :laugh:
Anna :rose: Having a bad bug day? Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
I always use "warning level 4" and I always deal with all warnings.. "treat warnings as errors" is not necessary. In fact, "treat warnings as errors" is a pain since it would stop builds when I want to postpone, for example, deleting an unused variable. I would say that using "warning level 4" is far more important than using "treat warnings as errors".
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
When I am working as a lone developer absolutely. However, when I am part of a large team there are just too many monkeys running around claiming to write code. While my individual code will compile without warnings I just don't have the time or patience to fix the logical fallacies of other developers.
Need a C# Consultant? I'm available.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway -
No I don't, but then the only errors I get are VC6 STL warnings on the length of the names. Well, those are the only ones I get at level 3, at level 4 there are lots but it's a legacy project which is too big to sort out. :(
Take a look at this: http://www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html[^] I use that to nuke those darn (useless) length too long warnings.
John
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
We have it turned on for all projects at work, plus the build on the build server fails if there are any warnings. The unreachable code warnings raised as errors can be a pain at times though when you're doing a few quick tests locally - end up either having to comment out large sections temporarily or changing the project settings temporarily so they aren't treated as errors. That warning is also triggered when conditional compilation is used (so pragmas have to be put in to temporarily disable them).
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Do you used to turn it on ?
No, but when I see warnings, I treat them as errors and fix them. But then again, I also don't use the stupid window that categorizes warnings and errors and tasks and whatever. I find it totally useless, as it doesn't give them to me in the right order (in my experience, I could be wrong), as it often gives me errors in dependent assemblies when the real problem is in the dependency (I'm talking C# development here basically). I just set the "Show Output" window to true and set the verbosity to minimum. Marc
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
Well thanks for reminding me to check mine. :-D I have that turned off and I use warning level 4. But here's the situation: for my primary library project I have the release build produce an XML documentation file, which results in (currently) 1390 warnings of type 1591: "Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member '...'" Which sometimes (as I just did) I choose to suppress, but most of the time I don't. I think maybe I should suppress it most of the time. :~
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
-
Do you used to turn it on ? I always plan to do so, but the number of warnings will force me to turn it off again. I would like to know is it worth turning that option "on" ?
Always for release builds. For debug builds when the product is in, or close to, maintenance phase. I also put warnings at 4, though with very small number of exceptions. I worked on a project once that had over 8,000 warnings at level 3. (I was told that it was 20,000+ at one point.) Apparently, the previous developers would redirect the warnings into a file and do a diff on it and examine the diff. They would choose which warnings to ignore and which ones to fix and then create a new master warnings file. My boss and coworker eliminated all the warnings, cranked it up to level 4, and eliminated those. The crazy part is how often the warnings really were indicating serious problems. For the record, here is my standard list of ignored warnings.
#pragma warning(disable : 4710) // function not inlined
#pragma warning(disable : 4711) // function 'function' selected for inline expansion
#pragma warning(disable : 4200) // nonstandard extension used : zero-sized array in struct/unionAnyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
ForumExpertOnLine wrote:
Do you used to turn it on ?
No, but when I see warnings, I treat them as errors and fix them. But then again, I also don't use the stupid window that categorizes warnings and errors and tasks and whatever. I find it totally useless, as it doesn't give them to me in the right order (in my experience, I could be wrong), as it often gives me errors in dependent assemblies when the real problem is in the dependency (I'm talking C# development here basically). I just set the "Show Output" window to true and set the verbosity to minimum. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
set the verbosity to minimum.
That's sounds good. Can you tell me how to set the verbosity to minimum ? I didn't find any options.