-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 366
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fightwarn groundwork #844
Merged
jimklimov
merged 26 commits into
networkupstools:master
from
jimklimov:fightwarn-groundwork
Nov 9, 2020
Merged
Fightwarn groundwork #844
jimklimov
merged 26 commits into
networkupstools:master
from
jimklimov:fightwarn-groundwork
Nov 9, 2020
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…htwarn" to build more test cases in Travis CI
…htwarn" to build more test cases in Travis CI (actually enable those build matrices)
…s (did not test for "${CLANG}" so drop it for now)
…ngs already passed to the compiler (that older releases may not understand if we just force them)
…sed, or we can not pass even autoconf
…hrough=3 to let special comments quiesce the warning where a FALLTHRU is intentional
…ch-case fall-through
… extend it to "configure_nut()" and "build_to_only_catch_errors()" more variants
This was referenced Nov 8, 2020
Avoid "quiesce" to satisfy the spellchecker
This was referenced Nov 8, 2020
To fetch the entirety of "classified" PRs mentioned above along with this one, grab https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn (current state is in commit a31977e). Note that at this time there is one known issue that precludes "green" Travis CI builds without a solution proposed, raised in PR #850, and a few others in issues #860, #861 and #862 for some but not all of the buildbot workers. |
…er features; implicit switch FALLTHRU was solved by explicit goto jumps
This was referenced Nov 9, 2020
Merged
This was referenced Nov 17, 2020
This was referenced Nov 25, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR follows up from #823 and is part of a larger effort to detect and fix warnings issued by newer compilers and exposing issues in NUT codebase; it just lays the groundwork for subsequent PRs that would propose fixes for different groups of problems (logic, maintainability, overflow, ...) detected.
It also enables optional Travis CI builds for the larger test matrix for branches whose names contain "fightwarn" (or PRs targeted at branches so named) so that usual builds of NUT and its pull requests would not waste CI resources predictably-in-vain.
Over time as some test cases do become "green" and are moved to not being optional successes, this optional buildability would impact less and less cases, hopefully.
One practical point worth mentioning to the team is the addition of
developers.txt
section below on usinggoto
as an explicit way to implementswitch
case fall-through; after several attempts, seems this is the only portable way to achieve that (and also quite self-documenting). Subsequent PRs would post the fixes for existing fall-through statements; for most of then the intention was quite apparent, but a few I'm not sure about - these would be posted separately to not block merging the main bunch.This PR I intend to merge with little need for discussion, maybe within a week. Still, review and approval would be warmly appreciated :)