In article <3r81b3Fi346kU1@individual.net>,
S.Tobias <siXtY@FamOuS.BedBuG.pAlS.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> This idea has been wandering around me for some time, too.
> It could work like this: programmer puts #pramas in the code,
> which contain verbatim quotes (or regexes, or identifires) of warnings
> that are to be suppressed for the next line.  The utility program (or
> a script) calculates line numbers and produces a list of warnings
> (with the line numbers) to cut out from the compiler output.
> Like this:
>   #pragma nowarn t.c:%n: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
>   if (u>s)

Lately, I've been fixing this with:

  if (s < 0 || u > (unsigned) s)

but only after careful examination of what s really
represents.  If s just contained a sloppy assignment from
what was previously an unsigned value, then no need for the
extra mathematical rigor.

Also, a lot these warnings arise from people using int when
they should have used size_t.

In comp.lang.c Eric Sosman <eric.sosman@sun.com> wrote:
> S.Tobias wrote On 10/13/05 17:19,:
>> In comp.lang.c Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
>>>Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>>>>Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.
>>>>Carefully inspect the warnings and head them.
>>>>Catch the warnings on the resulting cleaner code.
>>>>Now in the regression test, expect the warnings to remain
>>>>the same, i.e. make a diff with the file with the warnings
>>>>of the previous test.
>>>>Only act on warnings changes, indicative of new warnings.
>>>That's an interesting idea!  I suppose I should strip the line numbers
>>>on the warnings so that code insertion/deletion doesn't trigger an
>>>avalanche in the diff.  It's time for a little scripting.  I'll have
>>>to give that a try.  I could even fail a make if the warning file
>>>changed.
>> This idea has been wandering around me for some time, too.
>> It could work like this: programmer puts #pramas in the code,
>> which contain verbatim quotes (or regexes, or identifires) of warnings
>> that are to be suppressed for the next line.  The utility program (or
>> a script) calculates line numbers and produces a list of warnings
>> (with the line numbers) to cut out from the compiler output.
>> Like this:
>>   #pragma nowarn t.c:%n: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
>>   if (u>s)
> 
>    Ugh.  Ugh ugh ugh.
> 
That's how great ideas die - someone says "ugh"...  ;-)

>    First, while the use of warning-suppressing tags in the
> code goes back at least to lint, using #pragma to express
> them is a truly terrible idea.  Somewhere there'll be a
> compiler that actually recognizes "#pragma nowarn" and does
> something with it -- for example, suppressing all warning
> messages for the entire translation unit, or turning on
> ARN (automatic name rewriting) NOW.  
:-)
>Embed such tags in
> specially-formatted comments that are linquistically inert,
> not in constructs that might at any moment turn into toxic
> chemicals and rot your program.
> 
That's true.  All #pragmas (with a small exception) suffer from this 
disease.  OTOH the whole concept is subject to implementation behaviour 
and is not (universally) portable.  But I agree, it's always better to
avoid a mine-field, and take a quiet and safe path.
(Only, what if the compiler uses the same tags embedded in comments
for its own purposes, too?)

What might actually be bad in practice with #pragmas is that a
compiler might issue warnings about unrecognized #pragmas, thus
we'd be chasing our tail.

Let's make that:
  /* $ nowarn: ... $ */
(Actually, only `$ nowarn: ... $' part is recognized by the utility.)


>    Second, a far better way to suppress the warning you
> mention is
> 
>        if (u > (unsigned)s)
> 
> Sometimes it can be a bad thing for a "last resort" mechanism
> to exist: it's too easy for people to give up searching for
> the "first resort."
> 
That was just a poor example how it could be used.  Anyway,
you had to clutter the code to suppress the warning, too.
Sometimes there's no way of "fixing" warnings for all compilers,
you do it for one, and some other issue arises for another.

Consider this (semi-real-life example):
  off_t  off;
  size_t siz;

  if (siz > off) ;
may cause:
  warning: signed/unsigned in comparison
on one implementation, whereas
  if (siz > (size_t)off) ;
on another may issue:
  warning: possible loss of data in cast
(besides that casting always makes me feel uneasy).
It's not obvious which side to cast to which.

(I actually solved it this way (through a macro):
  if(siz + (off_t)0 > off + (size_t)0) ;
(clue: usual arithmetic conversions).
)

>    Finally, and it's been said before: The goal of turning
> of ALL warnings from ALL compilers is ultimately futile,
> because compilers are allowed to complain about anything
> they feel like.  "Warning: Source was modified at 2:37 AM;
> sleep-deprived programmer may have made more mistakes than
> usaul."
> 
Well, yes, but my goal is not to turn off ALL warnings, but
only *known* and *inspected* warnings.  The idea is that
I don't waste my work when line numbers change.

-- 
Stan Tobias
mailx `echo siXtY@FamOuS.BedBuG.pAlS.INVALID | sed s/[[:upper:]]//g`


S.Tobias wrote On 10/13/05 17:19,:
> In comp.lang.c Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
> 
>>Albert van der Horst wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.
>>>Carefully inspect the warnings and head them.
>>>Catch the warnings on the resulting cleaner code.
>>>Now in the regression test, expect the warnings to remain
>>>the same, i.e. make a diff with the file with the warnings
>>>of the previous test.
>>>Only act on warnings changes, indicative of new warnings.
>>
>>That's an interesting idea!  I suppose I should strip the line numbers
>>on the warnings so that code insertion/deletion doesn't trigger an
>>avalanche in the diff.  It's time for a little scripting.  I'll have
>>to give that a try.  I could even fail a make if the warning file
>>changed.
> 
> 
> This idea has been wandering around me for some time, too.
> It could work like this: programmer puts #pramas in the code,
> which contain verbatim quotes (or regexes, or identifires) of warnings
> that are to be suppressed for the next line.  The utility program (or
> a script) calculates line numbers and produces a list of warnings
> (with the line numbers) to cut out from the compiler output.
> Like this:
>   #pragma nowarn t.c:%n: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
>   if (u>s)

    Ugh.  Ugh ugh ugh.

    First, while the use of warning-suppressing tags in the
code goes back at least to lint, using #pragma to express
them is a truly terrible idea.  Somewhere there'll be a
compiler that actually recognizes "#pragma nowarn" and does
something with it -- for example, suppressing all warning
messages for the entire translation unit, or turning on
ARN (automatic name rewriting) NOW.  Embed such tags in
specially-formatted comments that are linquistically inert,
not in constructs that might at any moment turn into toxic
chemicals and rot your program.

    (Aside: I quite understand that the idea of "a different
compiler" may well be foreign to many projects of interest
in comp.arch.embedded.  However, the thread is cross-posted
to comp.lang.c as well, where portability concerns appear to
carry somewhat more weight.)

    Second, a far better way to suppress the warning you
mention is

	if (u > (unsigned)s)

Sometimes it can be a bad thing for a "last resort" mechanism
to exist: it's too easy for people to give up searching for
the "first resort."

    Finally, and it's been said before: The goal of turning
of ALL warnings from ALL compilers is ultimately futile,
because compilers are allowed to complain about anything
they feel like.  "Warning: Source was modified at 2:37 AM;
sleep-deprived programmer may have made more mistakes than
usaul."

-- 
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

In comp.lang.c Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
> Albert van der Horst wrote:
[snip]
>> Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.
>> Carefully inspect the warnings and head them.
>> Catch the warnings on the resulting cleaner code.
>> Now in the regression test, expect the warnings to remain
>> the same, i.e. make a diff with the file with the warnings
>> of the previous test.
>> Only act on warnings changes, indicative of new warnings.
> 
> That's an interesting idea!  I suppose I should strip the line numbers
> on the warnings so that code insertion/deletion doesn't trigger an
> avalanche in the diff.  It's time for a little scripting.  I'll have
> to give that a try.  I could even fail a make if the warning file
> changed.

This idea has been wandering around me for some time, too.
It could work like this: programmer puts #pramas in the code,
which contain verbatim quotes (or regexes, or identifires) of warnings
that are to be suppressed for the next line.  The utility program (or
a script) calculates line numbers and produces a list of warnings
(with the line numbers) to cut out from the compiler output.
Like this:
  #pragma nowarn t.c:%n: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
  if (u>s)

-- 
Stan Tobias
mailx `echo siXtY@FamOuS.BedBuG.pAlS.INVALID | sed s/[[:upper:]]//g`

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> 
> In article <1128616135.46050bff8a89745339c73052e1094284@teranews>,
> Thad Smith  <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:

> >True.  I typically only work with a few compilers and spend a little
> >time to customize such things as eliminating unneeded warnings, which
> >allows me to more easily find real problems.  Turning off warnings,
> >ignoring them, or sprinkling non-standard code throughout is a last
> >resort for me.  You may have other techniques that work better for
> >you.
> 
> Indeed there is a much better technique.
> Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.
> Carefully inspect the warnings and head them.
> Catch the warnings on the resulting cleaner code.
> Now in the regression test, expect the warnings to remain
> the same, i.e. make a diff with the file with the warnings
> of the previous test.
> Only act on warnings changes, indicative of new warnings.

That's an interesting idea!  I suppose I should strip the line numbers
on the warnings so that code insertion/deletion doesn't trigger an
avalanche in the diff.  It's time for a little scripting.  I'll have
to give that a try.  I could even fail a make if the warning file
changed.

> Or on warnings that went away since you cleaned up your code.

Hmmm, the ominous disappearing warning!

> Never ever becludge your code to suppress warnings.

The goal, of course, is to easily detect new warnings so that they can
be examined.  Your approach is an interesting one.

> They are there to ... warn you, which is a Good Thing.

Well, yes.  That's why I try to hint to the compiler that its OK that
an if statement has a constant expression (because the macro it is in
takes various parameters).  

Let's see, if I have conditional sections in my code, the warnings may
come and go as I change switches -- oh, dear!  I suppose I should have
to have a separate expected warnings file for each configuration.

Thad

Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:

# Indeed there is a much better technique.
# Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.

Recompile megabytes of source code because you change one
function declaration in a header file.

--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
Raining down sulphur is like an endurance trial, man. Genocide is the
most exhausting activity one can engage in. Next to soccer.

In article <1128616135.46050bff8a89745339c73052e1094284@teranews>,
Thad Smith  <ThadSmith@acm.org> wrote:
>Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>
>> Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> writes:
>>
>> [suppressed "parameter not used" warnings]
>> > With no standard way to do this, we are left to search about
>> > for implementation-dependent hacks.
>>
>> Personally, I use an implementation-dependent feature that works
>> for the compilers I really care about.
>
>Same here.
>
>> Why worry about trying to suppress warnings on every compiler?
>
>I don't know.  I'm certainly not advocating such worry.
>
>> It's not possible and you could waste a lot of time trying.
>
>True.  I typically only work with a few compilers and spend a little
>time to customize such things as eliminating unneeded warnings, which
>allows me to more easily find real problems.  Turning off warnings,
>ignoring them, or sprinkling non-standard code throughout is a last
>resort for me.  You may have other techniques that work better for
>you.

Indeed there is a much better technique.
Make clean code. Catch the warnings in a file.
Carefully inspect the warnings and head them.
Catch the warnings on the resulting cleaner code.
Now in the regression test, expect the warnings to remain
the same, i.e. make a diff with the file with the warnings
of the previous test.
Only act on warnings changes, indicative of new warnings.
Or on warnings that went away since you cleaned up your code.

Never ever becludge your code to suppress warnings.
They are there to ... warn you, which is a Good Thing.

>
>Thad

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Ben Pfaff wrote:
> 
> Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> writes:
> 
> [suppressed "parameter not used" warnings]
> > With no standard way to do this, we are left to search about
> > for implementation-dependent hacks.
> 
> Personally, I use an implementation-dependent feature that works
> for the compilers I really care about.  

Same here.

> Why worry about trying to suppress warnings on every compiler?  

I don't know.  I'm certainly not advocating such worry.

> It's not possible and you could waste a lot of time trying.

True.  I typically only work with a few compilers and spend a little
time to customize such things as eliminating unneeded warnings, which
allows me to more easily find real problems.  Turning off warnings,
ignoring them, or sprinkling non-standard code throughout is a last
resort for me.  You may have other techniques that work better for
you.

Thad

On 2005-10-05, Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Thad Smith <ThadSmith@acm.org> writes:
>
> [suppressed "parameter not used" warnings]
>> With no standard way to do this, we are left to search about
>> for implementation-dependent hacks.
>
> Personally, I use an implementation-dependent feature that
> works for the compilers I really care about.  Why worry about
> trying to suppress warnings on every compiler?  It's not
> possible and you could waste a lot of time trying.

Here in comp.arch.embedded, anybody with too strong an aversion
to implementation-dependent "hacks" is in for a lifetime of
frustration.  There are just too many times when there simply
is no other way to accomplish that which must be accomplished.

Sure, standard and portable is always a good goal, but when
theres a 90+ percent chance the program is never going to be
compiled by a different compiler or run on a different
platform, there's a limit to how much utility should be
sacrificed and much effort should be expended to avoid usign
somethign like gcc's __attribute__(()) extension.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  My LIBRARY CARD
                                  at               expired...
                               visi.com