From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,17e99293e94a7e6f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-06 14:23:36 PST Message-ID: <3E1A004F.7010703@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Another ammunition References: <3E11C888.1060102@cogeco.ca> <3E19BF66.2050506@cogeco.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:16:47 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1041891407 198.96.47.195 (Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:16:47 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:16:47 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32646 Date: 2003-01-06T17:16:47-05:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > >>The point is, is that a lot of other projects and even team members >>fail to include the support for this "warning". If it were on by >>default, there would be uncounted number of hours saved each year >>by programmers who instead spend the time debugging a problem >>related to this issue. I've seen this time and again, even though >>my team members know about it. > > No tool can substitute for good process, and good education. I agree with this to some degree, but I would also suggest that no amount of "good process or education" is a substitute for bad tools or defaults! > No tool should be used with only the default command line parameters; Nobody said that this should be the case. Nobody. So why harp about this? What was said was that there are safer defaults. > the project style guide should say what parameters to specify, and it > must be enforced. So do you lock down every developer's PC too, so they can't mess with their environment? Programmers are a rebellious lot, and strict levels of enforcement may work in some environments for military projects and NASA, but they don't work in many other environments. Or at least _it isn't done_ ;-) > The first step in your debug process should be to make sure the proper > warnings are turned on, and fix all warnings. No one is doubting this, but there are two problems with this: (1) if the developer is working on a large project with a ton of warnings already, he's not likely to fix them all now. However, if he's smart (and that is not necessarily a given ;-), he'd grep for the most important warnings at least. (2) Some developers (particularly the less experienced ones), do not know what to look for, let alone turn on the correct compile options. At least if it was on by default (or with -Wall), then there would be at least a chance that they'd see it and do something about it. Note: For a time (if not currently), -Wall did not include _all_ warnings. I believe the return type warning was not included. >>It is not enough to say "it is not an issue because I do this...". >>It is an issue, > > yes, it is. And the proper solution is good process. I don't buy this. We're going to have to disagree on this point. >>that could be fixed once and for all. > > Nope. People who don't like to fix warnings will include the option to > supress them (that option has to be there, because you do occasionally > have a legitmate need for it). Again, nobody (I repeat nobody) said that the option to remove that warning should be disabled or removed. The statement was, that it should be on by _default_. Read my lips ;-) "Nothing more, nothing less." If you left your house for a vacation, and due to the hustle and bustle of getting your 3 kids, 2 dogs and your wife all in the van to go, wouldn't you want to be warned that you forgot to lock the back door? Your solution is to strickly depend upon process and "education". Human nature is such that you cannot _depend_ soley upon this. This is why Ada does not depend strictly upon process or education. >>Even a warning doesn't guarantee that it will be noticed and fixed >>-- but it greatly increases the odds! > > Not much. As has been pointed out in this thread, many people ignore > warnings all the time. Whether its is much or little, I won't argue. You concede that it is better, and so even that suggests in favour of what I said in the beginning (change the default). >>However, the best solution of all is to use Ada instead, and only >>rely on C like an assembly level layer, when required ;-) > > True. But even for Ada, using the default command line parameters for > the compiler and linker is bad practice. Again, nobody is saying that you should use strictly defaults. Nobody! But having _safer_ defaults is useful and helpful in the general sense, because _some_ people will use them, irregardless of your superior education and process. Its like herding cats ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg