Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor

From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor
Date	2025-03-15 08:49 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<86y0x6qooq.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <86bju3s5vp.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87zfhniaij.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <8634ffrzj0.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87o6y3i45x.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <WHgBP.13722$cYP6.2214@fx08.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> It's because of examples like this that I am wary of rules
>>>>> like "enable all warnings" and "treat any warning condition
>>>>> as an error."  I recently ran across a set of coding standard
>>>>> rules that included these rules:  not just /some/ warning
>>>>> conditions, but ALL warning conditions.  I still don't know
>>>>> if they were literally serious.  (And my understanding is
>>>>> clang has a -Weverything option, which enables all warning
>>>>> conditions that clang is able to test for, no matter how
>>>>> silly.)
>>>>
>>>> I've worked under such coding standards.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing this comment is an overstatement, and that you have
>>> worked with similar but not nearly as stringent coding standards.
>>> The coding standard I was referring to above says "Compile with
>>> all possible warnings active" (and then also says something about
>>> addressing them).
>>
>> Right, I didn't read closely enough.  Some (non-maximal) set of
>> warnings were enabled, and any warnings that resulted were treated
>> as fatal errors.
>
> We build with -Wall.  It's been quite successful for us and
> hasn't resulted in significant effort to maintain (granted
> as we switch to newer versions of the compiler suite,   we
> run into new warnings, but they're quite easy  to  address
> either via code changes or #pragma).
>
> The codebase runs well over two million SLOC and supports
> gcc7 through gcc14.

Can you say which new warnings have been addressed via #pragma
(which I assume effectively means selective disabling)?

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Concatenated if and preprocessor pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 16:44 +0100
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-13 16:55 +0100
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-13 16:11 +0000
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-13 12:07 -0400
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 16:30 +0000
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-13 17:29 +0000
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-13 14:37 -0700
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 18:25 -0500
      Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-14 09:26 -0700
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-13 12:19 -0400
  Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 13:02 +0100
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-14 14:13 +0100
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-03-14 13:44 +0000
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-14 09:44 -0700
      Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-14 18:15 +0000
        Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-14 13:40 -0700
          Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 14:10 -0700
            Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-14 21:31 +0000
              Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-14 15:29 -0700
                Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-15 17:32 +0100
            Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-14 15:57 -0700
              Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 16:27 -0700
                Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-15 15:06 +0000
                Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-15 08:49 -0700
                Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-15 17:28 +0000
            Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-15 17:28 +0100
        Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 07:03 +0000
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 11:10 -0700
    Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-14 23:20 -0400

csiph-web