From: jpwoodruff <jpwoodruff@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simple Warnings Needs
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2011-02-23T15:07:16-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10a06ab9-0878-415d-9050-66de0a51e54b@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: a13958e8-ac82-4b50-a931-1a3a706bdff4@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
On Feb 23, 11:56 am, mockturtle <framefri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:52:37 PM UTC+1, Rego wrote:
> > I would like to know (in more details than gnat documentation) the criticality of these warnings options:
> > ** "-gnatwd" (Implicit dereferencing)
> > ** "-gnatwf" (Unreferenced formals)
> > ** "-gnatwh" (Hiding)
> > ** "-gnatwm" (Modified but unreferenced variables)
> > ** "-gnatwk" (Variables that could be constants)
>
>
> About "-gnatwf" (Unreferenced formals), "-gnatwm" (Modified but unreferenced variables) I think that the idea is to warn about "strange" construct: why did you modify that variable if you are not reading it again? This is strange and maybe it is the consequence of an error. Again, the risk is having a program with a bug rather than a security threat.
>
I think I'd like these if I were "adjusting" some old code. Suppose I
added a requirement to some good quality code. I'll look for the
warning when I'm done modifying, so I'll see if I left some artifact
that should have been considered when I modify.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-23 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-23 18:52 Simple Warnings Needs Rego
2011-02-23 19:56 ` mockturtle
2011-02-23 23:07 ` jpwoodruff [this message]
2011-02-23 20:06 ` Ludovic Brenta
2011-02-23 21:55 ` Martin
2011-02-24 8:26 ` Markus Schöpflin
2011-02-26 3:51 ` Rego
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox