Fwd: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

[Kevin Funk]

On Friday, March 04, 2016 09:55:16 PM Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Freitag, 4. März 2016 21:22:03 CET Kevin Funk wrote:
> > On Friday, March 04, 2016 09:00:21 PM Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 4. März 2016 10:51:08 CET Kevin Funk wrote:
> > > > Are *we* free of it?
> > > > 
> > > > Simply using this under Clang should tell us about all occurrences:
> > > >   -Werror=undefined-bool-conversion
> > > 
> > > I think that there where cases in the older code base and they broke
> > > with
> > > clang already and I fixed it. I'm not sure whether I found all of those
> > > though
> > > 
> > > :)
> > > 
> > > I'll also take another look.
> > 
> > Not necessary I think.
> > 
> > I've build both kdevplatform + kdevelop with a change similar to this:
> > 
> > if (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID MATCHES "Clang")
> > 
> >     set(CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS "${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS}
> > 
> > -Werror=undefined-bool-conversion -Werror=tautological-undefined-compare")
> > endif()
> > 
> > => No compile errors. => All fine I think.
> > 
> > I've asked the GCC guys, whether they have more info.
> > 
> > Question is: want me to commit above patch? I guess it makes sense
> > nevertheless. See [1] [2] for what things trigger those warnings.
> 
> LGTM, please add. Do we need to check the clang version though?

Nope.

Warning flags have been there at least since Clang 3.5 times (checked 
earlier).

> Cheers

-- 
Kevin Funk | kfunk at kde.org | http://kfunk.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20160305/8e1fe2fa/attachment.sig>