-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
Treat all warnings as errors #288
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
Treat all warnings as errors #288
Conversation
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
4 similar comments
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
cd4f137
to
a4a5949
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
1b78f31
to
0d27bbc
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #288 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 54.31% 54.37% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 2957 2959 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 1606 1609 +3
+ Misses 1351 1350 -1
|
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
15 similar comments
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
b035ff1
to
3b35433
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
4 similar comments
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
f5eed09
to
ada0a3a
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
static int s_a; \ | ||
} c; \ | ||
int C::s_a = 12; | ||
#else |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Likewise.
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
2 similar comments
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
#pragma GCC diagnostic push | ||
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-private-field" | ||
CODE; | ||
#pragma GCC diagnostic pop |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's drop the pragmas and make classes struct
s. This way the m_*
will become public and will make the warning go away.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@vgvassilev That will fix most warnings, but this won't fix the warning about N from the line const int N = 5; being unused VariableReflectionTest.cpp. This warning about it being unused only occurs on osx I believe.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://github.com/compiler-research/CppInterOp/actions/runs/9142202412/job/25137488586?pr=288#step:15:185 Link to error with const int N = 5; Unless there is a specific reason its being labelled const then I can try fixing it by removing the const?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Testing removing const to fix. Will revert and try something else if needed
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
1 similar comment
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
76526c8
to
e546ec4
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
@vgvassilev This PR is ready for further review. |
e546ec4
to
bcb8a7c
Compare
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ TEST(VariableReflectionTest, GetVariableType) { | |||
|
|||
#define CODE \ | |||
int a; \ | |||
const int N = 5; \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can’t change that because this changes the intent of the test. Maybe use it in the struct definition below to initialize some member.
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
@vgvassilev I have tried to address your comment about retaining N as const. This PR is ready for further review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
This PR will add the flag to treat all warnings as errors when building the ci.
Fixes #260
Fixes #234