From: Rego <pablo.rego@embraer.com.br>
Subject: Simple Warnings Needs
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2011-02-23T10:52:37-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8aaf3582-0cc1-4c5f-ab85-eeb7ba569d9e@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> (raw)
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)
I mean, for instance, a code with several variables that could be constants, even in local procedures is an ugly code, not clean, but generally it's ok if works. But I just want to understand what kind of other complications that code could get due to not fixing these type of constructs. Someone once told me that it could bring out code vulnerabilities, the binary app could become "hackeable", but he gave not a deep explanation (so I cannot convince others about this). And I did not find in ARM05 and gnat documentation. So, could someone give me a hint?
Regards.
next reply other threads:[~2011-02-23 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-23 18:52 Rego [this message]
2011-02-23 19:56 ` Simple Warnings Needs mockturtle
2011-02-23 23:07 ` jpwoodruff
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