Compiler Warnings...

[RickZeeland]

A classic ! :-\

[RickZeeland]

Would you still prefer Delphi over .Net ?

[Ravi Bhavnani]

Compiler warnings fail our build.  If we really need to ignore a specific warning, we disable it. /ravi

My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

set warnings as errors. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun

[DJ van Wyk]

Warnings have the tendency to hide errors. John Carmack wrote a pretty good article a few years ago about the best way to think of and treat warnings.

My plan is to live forever ... so far so good

[Member 9167057]

While prototyping, who cares. When making the code production-ready, same as errors.

[markrlondon]

We ignore all warnings and catch bugs in user alpha testing. Of course.

[den2k88]

Unless you're bound to MISRA or the equivalent Aerospace normative.

GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++*      Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X

[W Balboos GHB]

I don't take threats!

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[W Balboos GHB]

Have you ever heard of "Job Security" ?

Ravings en masse^

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010

[Marco Bertschi]

We manage them. Warnings which disturb us (coding-style variances those warn us of, mostly) get disabled by the ruleset, merging anything is only possible with zero warnings. Too often have warnings led to bugs, and managing them to get only those which add value for our team has suited us well.

I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.

[obermd]

I consider them Errors and fail the compile.

[kmoorevs]

markrlondon wrote:

catch bugs in user alpha testing.

:thumbsup: Finally, a real-world answer! If it weren't for users, I'd have no bugs at all. :laugh:

"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse

[Dr Walt Fair PE]

I prefer to call them suggestions. and if I wanted suggestions for my code, I'd just out-source it.

CQ de W5ALT

Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software

[Gary Wheeler]

To the knife.

Software Zen: delete this;

[I_made_a_womble]

Compiler warnings should never be ignored. If you ignore them, they build up and eventually obscure things like: "Unable to resolve reference to x as it was built with a higher framework version". This is just a warning, but try and publish such an application and you will quickly find it does not work in production. The number of times I am asked to help someone solve an issue which they could have solved themselves if they just read the warnings...

[dandy72]

Carry on, my friend! :-p

[Lost User]

The only warnings ones I (usually) have are "returns" used to "disable" code meant for (eventual) deletion. So, I guess I do take notice when it's something else. They eventually get cleaned up; mostly unreferenced variables. Probably an OCD thing. (Someone once noticed I had left an unused namespace in my XAML ... while I was developing; and felt they needed to bring it up).

The Master said, 'Am I indeed possessed of knowledge? I am not knowing. But if a mean person, who appears quite empty-like, ask anything of me, I set it forth from one end to the other, and exhaust it.' ― Confucian Analects

[kalberts]

We are in the process of introducing the Coverity static code analyzer. It is very good at telling you why it warns you ("If [this] occurs, and then [this] and then [this], then you follow a null reference at [that] line" - the series of inferences may jump from source file to source file, and may go in five or six or more steps). For this discussion it is more important that it maintains a history of all the "defects": If you have once reported that a given defect is in intentional, at the next Coverity run it will not be reported again. Same if you have flagged it as a false warning (which may occur if you set the agressiveness level to "high"). So you won't have the same warnings again and again. That makes it much more realistic to handle even moderate risk defects, because you do it once only. And if you give it a verdict of "intentional" or "false warning", you can leave it in your source code as it is. Actually I am a little bit in love with Coverity at the moment. I never seen any compiler or other code analyzer that comes close to it neither in its ability to detect defects, nor its flexibility in handling them. The big disadvantage is that your billfold will complain loudly ... And it takes some heavy iron (or lot of patience). But when you employer can afford both the software and the iron, then it is great.

[Bitbeisser]

Lazy programmers might be the first ones that get fired...