warning flags was Re: rename issue

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Mon May 11 13:29:23 UTC 2009

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Chris Johns wrote:
>>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> IMO BSPs should not add specific warnings but we can't
>> just delete these
> I do not agree with this.
> There is nothing wrong with locally using obscure warning flags in 
> testing, but there should not be any room for such flags in CVS.
> These things should simply be removed and die!
I must not be clear this Monday morning.  I am not
advocating leaving them in the BSP specific flags.
Just evaluating if they are useful in finding questionable
code and if so, adding them to the standard set.
>> -- we need to decide if they become part
>> of the standard set.
> -Wall and nothing else, or even no warning flags at all.
> Otherwise we end up in swamp of flags and toolchain compatibility issues.
Warnings (and other static checks) can be very useful.
Any time they find questionable or broken code, it is one
less thing you have to debug.

I don't believe every warning flag is useful but some of the
ones this BSP turned on are showing up real questionable
type abuse.

I am actually concerned about these:


which show up across a number of ARM BSPs.  Either they
match the default or potentially create incompatabilities
with the libraries.
> Ralf

Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985

More information about the users mailing list