Re: [rmtools][php-5.4] Build error between r and 311062
| From: | Richard Quadling | Date: | Mon, 16 May 2011 09:42:52 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [rmtools][php-5.4] Build error between r and 311062 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-52384@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 16 May 2011 00:44, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Richard Quadling <rquadling@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15 May 2011 21:37, <noreply@php.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is an automatic mail from the rmtoool's build bots.
>>>
>>> New build errors have been introduced between
>>> and 311062.
>>>
>>> The errors are:
>>>
>>> php-5.4, build ts-windows-vc9-x86:
>>> , NMAKE, error, U1077, '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
>>> 9.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe"' : return code '0x2',
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Full logs are available at (htmlized versions too):
>>>
>>> http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/php-5.4/r311062
>>
>> With 3,475 warnings in the Win32 x86 VC9 nts build, how do you see the
>> wood for the trees?
>
>> If the warnings can be ignored, why not suppress them?
>
> Ideally almost all could be suppressed. However there are many false
> positive or cases that can't happen (theoretically). Keeping in mind
> that this log is the static analyzer logs. Once I got the new machines
> running, both normal and analyzers log will be published.
>
> The key then is to detect the delta between two revisions (should be
> up soon) and then fix those already.
>
> That being said, a warning php has been a sweet from many of us but
> some devs simply do not want that ;-).
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net |
> http://www.libgd.org
>
"some devs simply do not want that"
Why not? I'm guessing the amount of effort required to resolve false
positives outweighs the benefit.
When I was taught programming, compiler warnings were explained as the
compiler telling me that I had not made my intent 100% crystal clear
and that the compiler was making a good guess but possibly an
incorrect or inappropriate one. Not a bug per se, but just an error in
judgement.
And when you are compiling across so many different systems, would it
not be beneficial to at least re-examine some of these warnings. Just
in case ...?
Or am I just wasting my time and you all know exactly which warnings
are just junk? Are you all that good?
Richard.
--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY