Re: GCC and const-correctness

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: GCC and const-correctness
Date	2018-10-13 13:11 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ppsjt7$1go$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <slrnprupfc.f78.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <4g649f-v97.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> <slrnps0t4a.f78.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <ppq049$nad$1@dont-email.me> <pnj89f-eo6.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be>

Show all headers | View raw

On 13/10/18 09:33, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 12/10/18 13:21, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/10/18 12:16, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-10-11, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>>> The downside of that is that this makes it impossible for you to link
>>>> the program as soon as you use one of the declared-but-not-implemented
>>>> functions. That makes it harder to test the parts of the application
>>>> that you *did* write.
>>>
>>> It's also the upside: as a rule, I don't want the code to link if it's
>>> that incomplete.
>>
>> A convenient method is to use :
>>
>> void test(void) {
>> #warning Function "test" is not yet implemented
>> }
>>
>> In early stages of development, when you might want compiling and
>> linking to work despite known problems, you let this and other warning
>> messages slide.  Once the program starts to take shape and you need to
>> get more details in place, put "-Werror" in your Makefile and (to Bart's
>> joy) do a clean build.  From now on, these unimplemented functions will
>> fail to compile and can't be forgotten.
> 
> That's an awesome trick; thanks.
> 

Glad to help.

Thread

GCC and const-correctness Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:17 +0300
  Re: GCC and const-correctness Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-10-11 11:22 +0200
    Re: GCC and const-correctness Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:17 +0300
  Re: GCC and const-correctness Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 02:40 -0700
  Re: GCC and const-correctness Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:17 +0000
    Re: GCC and const-correctness Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:28 +0300
      Re: GCC and const-correctness Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:58 +0000
        Re: GCC and const-correctness jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-11 08:21 -0700
    Re: GCC and const-correctness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 12:39 +0200
    Re: GCC and const-correctness Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-11 15:02 +0000
      Re: GCC and const-correctness Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:06 +0300
      Re: GCC and const-correctness Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 17:23 +0200
        Re: GCC and const-correctness Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-10-12 10:16 +0000
          Re: GCC and const-correctness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-12 13:21 +0200
            Re: GCC and const-correctness Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-13 09:33 +0200
              Re: GCC and const-correctness David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-13 13:11 +0200
    Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 17:25 +0200
      Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 09:23 -0700
        Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 10:54 -0700
        Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 19:56 +0200
          Re: Empty functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 20:19 +0200
          Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 02:43 -0700
    Re: Empty functions (was: GCC and const-correctness) Anton Shepelev <ant0n.txt@gmai1.c0m> - 2018-10-11 19:16 +0300

csiph-web