3 ms·

This sort of thing is better set in CMake or equivalent with file specific flags to disable diagnostics. Then you don't have non-portable cruft littering the co

This sort of thing is better set in CMake or equivalent with file specific flags to disable diagnostics. Then you don't have non-portable cruft littering the code, you don't have to touch third party code, and there is a more centralized accounting of what marginal code you're hacking around. The loss of specificity is rarely going to be a problem.

cperciva 2y ago
If you disable warnings in your makefile, you'll lose them for the entire C file. Pragma warnings as above allow them to be disabled for just the problematic code in question.
einpoklum 2y ago
> with file specific flags But you don't want to disable warnings throughout the file, just locally. > Then you don't have non-portable cruft littering the code, You can make it perfectly portable, with a little macro work. See, ,for example: https://github.com/eyalroz/printf/blob/013db1e345cbb166a7eb758da2b4edba93ad2458/test/test_suite.cpp#L138 https://github.com/eyalroz/printf/blob/013db1e345cbb166a7eb7... (this is from the standalone-no-libc-printf-family-implementation I maintain; the library is C, the test suite is C++ but it doesn't matter for the purposes of my point here.) and that you only need to do once in your project (you can make it your own header). Even when it comes to use - you can place your warning-disabling within another macro, so that you end up only using a simple single macro for your actual code.