[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: Newbie question
From: |
Bob Paddock |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: Newbie question |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:29:20 -0500 |
>> Also enable compiler warnings - at a minimum, use these flags:
>>
>> -Wall -Wextra -Wunreachable-code
>>
>> Then the compiler would have told you of your error here.
I always run with the warnings maxed out, due to a "No Warning" policy.
However I did have to turn unreachable-code off. It gave far to many
false positives. Anyone have any ideas why?
I did not see 'pedantic' mentioned in the other warnings mentioned
in this thread:
# -pedantic : Issue all the mandatory diagnostics listed in the C
# standard. Some of them are left out by default, since they trigger frequently
# on harmless code.
#
# -pedantic-errors : Issue all the mandatory diagnostics, and make all
# mandatory diagnostics into errors. This includes mandatory diagnostics that
# GCC issues without -pedantic but treats as warnings.
#CFLAGS += -pedantic
> Sigh.. This is my second program in C.. On the first one, I got beat up for
> NOT doing the brackets the way I am now..
The debating of where to place the braces can be a great waste of time.
Pick a style and be consistent. What is never open for debate is that
braces must be used at all times. Standards like MISRA
http://www.misra.org.uk/ always require braces in all cases.
Not using braces open you up to problems like "dangling elses".
Setup a 'coding standard' policy and stick to it.
http://www.ganssle.com/misc/fsm.doc is a good starting point.
http://www.ganssle.com/inspections.pdf is also good for some one
new to read.
>I got beat up for NOT doing the brackets the way I am now..
http://www.ganssle.com/articles/Memotomyboss.htm
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Newbie question, Vincent Trouilliez, 2009/02/25
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Newbie question, David Kelly, 2009/02/25
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Newbie question, Georg-Johann Lay, 2009/02/25