[Ardour-Users] Ardour contributions ( was: Level needed ... )

Robin Gareus robin at gareus.org
Fri Mar 2 07:14:05 PST 2018

On 03/02/2018 03:22 PM, Chris Caudle wrote:
> On Fri, March 2, 2018 8:11 am, Ben Loftis wrote:
>> ....more ideas welcome!
> Is there any interest in minor changes that (probably) don't have any
> effect on functionality?

Yes there is! That is a very good suggestions, too.

Also code-indent (effective NO-OP) formatting according to

> I see pages of warnings like this when building:
> ../gtk2_ardour/ardour_ui_dialogs.cc:439:33: warning: missed loop
> optimization, the loop counter may overflow [-Wunsafe-loop-optimizations]
>   for (i = candidates.begin(); i != candidates.end(); ++i) {
>                                ~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Except this warning in particular is not a good example.
gcc, right? Which version are you using?

> Not a big deal, but at one point I was habituated to make sure code
> compiled without warnings 

I assume you have configured Ardour with  `--optimize --strict`.
--strict explicitly asks for `-Wunsafe-loop-optimizations -pedantic`.

Here it produces thousands of "cannot optimize loop" messages with gcc-4
and a few hundred with gcc-5 and fifty-something with gcc-7.

At least gcc's loop-optimizer is improving :)

> both to make sure any real logic errors did not slip through,

We try hard, and fix relevant warnings, but it's unlikely to ever be
100% warning-clean. In particular with "-pedantic". Also some warnings
come from header-includes and are different depending on compiler and

> and also to make sure the compiler was able to optimize
> fully. 

good luck with that :)

The loop in this case is over a STL container, a std::vector<>,  and not
under our control.

Besides one-off GUI code (triggered when you press ctrl+page-up/down).
There's no need to optimize it.

Now, fixing some of the static-analysis issues would be nice:
(except a lot of them are false-positives)


More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list