RFC: Avoiding #warning (C/C++ preprocessor extension)

[Nicolas Goutte]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 14:34, Mirko Boehm wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 23:15, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > I would
> > > say that no release tarball should contain -Werror.  It may be useful
> > > during development but it would be unnecessarily painful for release.
> >
> > ... so you cannot even have it in development, except if everybody would
> > use the same gcc version.
>
> Why not? It can be used as a standard during development, and removed
> before the release.
>
> On the other hand, I do not see the point. Removing annoying "unused
> parameter" warnings should be a habit, no need to make the compiler barf at

Keeping "unused parameter" warnings is normally a sign that there is a detail 
to fix in the code.

(For example, I have a hack in KBabel marked so. Sure I could use a #warning 
to do the same (It would be perhaps clearer to everybody) but then -Werror 
would break here too.)

> the first point where it encounters it. What is wrong with letting make
> finish the compile, and then removing all the warnings at once?

Indeed warnings of the compiler are supposed to help the developer and not to 
turn the compiler into a dictator.

>
> Forcing -Werror is too much of an annoyance, I think.

Yes!

>
> --Mirko.

Have a nice day!