Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)

[Scott Haney]

on 3/28/01 7:02 PM, Mark Mitchell at address@hidden wrote:

>>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Haney <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>   Scott> It is next to impossible for folks working with compilers
>   Scott> who aren't similarly enthusiastic in the warning department
>   Scott> to guard against this.  If we try to enforce this policy,
>   Scott> it will put a strain on the people compiling with GCC to
>   Scott> reorder and add stuff. Recognizing that warning-free
>   Scott> compilation is a good thing, do we want to take on this
>   Scott> burden?
> 
> That's an intelligent question.  There is definitely a cost here.
> 
> However, we shouldn't regard G++ as particularly more malleable than
> other compilers.  I'm all for fixing outright bugs, but this is a
> warning that a lot of G++ users like.  Ideally, we'd have a way to
> turn on and off particular warnings, and then we could perhaps decide
> that for POOMA we didn't care about this one.

I would complain about these warnings to any compiler vendor. I think we
thought this could be fixed by CodeSourcery since you guys work on the
compiler and we couldn't understand why these warnings would have community
support since they may save a very small group of people, but, for the rest,
it causes them to put on "ignore warning" filters. The order of initializers
warning has some stylistic merit, but the no explicit base class constructor
warning is, in my opinion, way out of line with respect to C++ idioms.

> 
> I guess I'd be inclined to suggest that we try to get things in the
> "right" order, and that we let Jeffrey fix these things up as he finds
> them.

This sounds reasonable.

> 
> Jeffrey, what level of warnings are you using?  Are you using -W
> -Wall?  That might be a little aggressive.

I agree. Our goal should be no warnings under "factory" conditions.

Scott