Re: Ardour contributions ( was: Level needed ... )
"Chris Caudle" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.audio.ardour.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, March 2, 2018 9:14 am, Robin Gareus wrote: > Except this warning in particular is not a good example. > gcc, right? Which version are you using? Yes, $ rpm -q gcc-c++ gcc-c++-7.3.1-2.fc27.x86_64 > I assume you have configured Ardour with `--optimize --strict`. > --strict explicitly asks for `-Wunsafe-loop-optimizations -pedantic`. It has been so long I will have to look back at my configure options... Yes, exactly: ./waf configure --optimize --strict --libjack=weak --with-backends=jack,alsa,dummy --cxx11 I'm not sure if gcc 7.x still needs -cxx11, I had to add that some Fedora versions back, haven't changed my configure script since then. > We try hard, and fix relevant warnings, but it's unlikely to ever be > 100% warning-clean. Yes, and understandable, but the fewer irrelevant warnings to wade through the less chance of a useful warning escaping notice. > The loop in this case is over a STL container, a std::vector<>, and not> under our control. Does that STL ship with gcc? If so seems like the gcc guys need to clean their own house. > Now, fixing some of the static-analysis issues would be nice: > https://nightly.ardour.org/list.php#clang_analyzer > (except a lot of them are false-positives) False positives are a pain. Some static analyzers have a way to add "hints" to reduce the incidence of false positives, maybe that is something that is a good getting started task for someone, add annotations that don't change the code but help the static analyzer. -- Chris C _______________________________________________ Ardour-Users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or change your mailing preferences please visit: http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-users-ardour.org