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

Chris Caudle chris at chriscaudle.org
Fri Mar 2 09:18:34 PST 2018

On Fri, March 2, 2018 9:14 am, Robin Gareus wrote:
> Except this warning in particular is not a good example.
> gcc, right? Which version are you using?

$ rpm -q gcc-c++

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

It has been so long I will have to look back at my configure options...
Yes, exactly:
./waf configure --optimize --strict --libjack=weak
--with-backends=jack,alsa,dummy --cxx11

I'm  not sure if gcc 7.x still needs -cxx11, I had to add that some Fedora
versions back, haven't changed my configure script since then.

> We try hard, and fix relevant warnings, but it's unlikely to ever be
> 100% warning-clean.

Yes, and understandable, but the fewer irrelevant warnings to wade through
the less chance of a useful warning escaping notice.

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

Does that STL ship with gcc?  If so seems like the gcc guys need to clean
their own house.

> Now, fixing some of the static-analysis issues would be nice:
> https://nightly.ardour.org/list.php#clang_analyzer
> (except a lot of them are false-positives)

False positives are a pain.  Some static analyzers have a way to add
"hints" to reduce the incidence of false positives, maybe that is
something that is a good getting started task for someone, add annotations
that don't change the code but help the static analyzer.

Chris C

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list