Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last
[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 09:11:43 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well...

I can see someone, later, modifying some_fn() to actually modify the string in some way (after all, according to the 'contract', you should be safe to do that).

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 09:13:11 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Still, you're getting warnings right now, not errors. The warnings are there to point out that something is wrong, and you should fix it... *before* you find yourself with a compiler error in some future version (when you turn off compatibility or whatever).

At least the compiler writers recognize what they're doing, and are trying to give you some kind of a rope (not so much to hang yourself with, as to repair the issue).

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 12:09:03 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, it's dumb, but right now I'm more frustrated by the fact that some builds of glibc are now shipping with warn_unused_result declared on *every* system call, resulting in many screenfuls of warnings that cannot be suppressed.

Yes, sometimes I *really* and *legitimately* don't care about the return value of a system call, because the program's subsequent behavior would be the same either way. I don't want the compiler to play holier-than-thou and insist that I need to handle the return value.

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 12:11:37 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Can you not adjust the compiler warning threshold, as you can with a Windows compiler?

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 12:11:46 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


(sorry, I meant a 'Microsoft' compiler)

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 13:17:56 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The threshold is adjustable, but there are plenty of other warnings that I want to see.

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 13:31:33 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Apr 21 2009 6:48am from fleeb @uncnsrd
Well, another way of seeing it is that this exposes a lurking error in your

code.

Like zombies? Oh, you said error not terror

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 17:07:01 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


In VC++, there's a pragma to ignore a compiler warning on a per-issue basis.

It'd be nice if such a thing existed for all compilers... but also kind of annoying.

[#] Tue Apr 21 2009 17:07:14 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh... yea, error.

[#] Wed Apr 22 2009 23:15:55 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, telling you about unused return information is a bit over the line, haven't run into that one yet.
I get warnings about assigned vars that never get read from, that makes sense, but you shouldn't be required to act on a return value.

[#] Thu Apr 23 2009 05:28:34 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

once I had funny troubles with a borland C and assembler routines with the coprocessor.

the program would crash in that assembler routine due to some uncertain precondition...

after searching about a day I found a function returning a real value where a return was missing.

just a warning...

from that day on we had a zero warning policy.



[#] Thu Apr 23 2009 07:55:50 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

oh, I have no problem with type checking the return, but if you choose to ignore the return, that shouldn't be considered a problem.

[#] Thu Apr 23 2009 14:10:08 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Right. You end up adding fluff code to either read the return value and then discard it, or to display a potentially meaningless error message, and then the code starts to become unreadable, which is overall worse for the program.

[#] Fri Apr 24 2009 15:11:23 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Oh, I've heard of that, it's called "Java".

[#] Fri Apr 24 2009 16:12:22 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

you know that joel on software guy? he wrote an article (maybe one of you mentione dit in the first place) about how java was the dumb man's language.

He's right, but I'm more leaning toward, well, if you're not doing anything serious anyway, so you write it in java...

[#] Fri Apr 24 2009 20:47:30 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

me chooses bash or php for non-serious coding.



[#] Fri Apr 24 2009 23:36:22 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

awk all the way my friend.

[#] Sat Apr 25 2009 14:02:50 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Java is just a more serious web language than PHP, although it is not as serious as, say, assembler.

[#] Sat Apr 25 2009 17:33:45 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


And how serious is JavaScript?

[#] Sat Apr 25 2009 19:16:08 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Java is just a more serious web language than PHP, although it is not

as serious as, say, assembler.

Nothing is as serious as assembler.
Except, I suppose typing in the hex yourself.

Go to page: First ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... Last