4 ms·
Sure, but my point is that -Werror is not always a good thing. You have a struct with 3 ints and then you add a bool and the compiler decides to pad the struct
by tormeh 12y ago
Sure, but my point is that -Werror is not always a good thing. You have a struct with 3 ints and then you add a bool and the compiler decides to pad the struct up to the size of 4 ints. When you have twelve of those structs obeying the -Werror is basically saying "stop the train! There's 36 bytes of wasted memory on the tracks", which is kinda ridiculous. I think it should be a note, not a warning, but until then -Werror is kinda broken for me.
- jacquesm 12y agoYou can selectively disable that particular warning with '-Wno-xxxx'. That way you get the ease of -Werror and you can get rid of those warnings that get in your way.
- the_why_of_y 12y agoYes, that is one approach that may be useful for some more esoteric warnings. All current compilers also have mechanisms to selectively ignore warnings via pragmas, like '#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wfoo"' in clang and GCC, which can be used to suppress instances of false positives of otherwise useful warnings. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa273936.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa273936.aspx IMHO not using -Werror is just inexcusable.