On Monday 26 March 2012, you wrote: > It's only good at a global level, for ALL warning :) I mean, good code > should not generate even warnings. I use the theory with gcc to compile > everything with -Werror, so warnings are errors. Of course gcc an produce > warnings even in case of "not fatal" but "common programmer misstakes". > Anyway, in my practice, the compiler was quite smart to warn me to avoid > certain situations even if they are "legal by standards". I am not sure if > cc65 has a switch like gcc's -Werror, -W is for suppress warnings, I would > need the opposite: make all of them as errors :) However, I guess it's not > a good business to make 'per warning type error switch/pragma', it could > be all or nothing stuff though. But maybe cc65 is evolving quickly to be > able to use 'warnings as errors' in case of some minor modifications > between different versions or so :) > > Anyway, even without this, good code should not throw even "non-fatal > warnings" in my opinion. Well, it can be compiler bug as well if it does :) *especially* when using cc65 i recommend this - often there things that omit warnings ARE infact bugs (although legal C ofofcourse). and its -W error :) -- http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. <Alan Braggins> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Tue Mar 27 07:16:36 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-03-27 07:16:40 CEST