Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:28:16 12/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2001 at 23:11:55, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>On December 06, 2001 at 19:43:57, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On December 06, 2001 at 13:31:44, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>>
>>>On December 06, 2001 at 12:53:14, Severi Salminen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi!
>>>>
>>>>Don't ever, I mean never ever, disable "those stupid warnings you don't want to
>>>>see anymore because they mean nothing". Well, for some odd reason I had disabled
>>>>unary operator and type conversion warnings. Now I just removed the #pragma
>>>>directive and found a major bug! I was using a 32-bit integer as a temporary
>>>>variable to store a 64-bit bitboard - how smart of me!! Actually I'm surprised I
>>>>hadn't noticed it before as it should've had corrupted the board representation
>>>>badly every time there was pawn double move. Well, now my program plays at least
>>>>5 elos better ;)
>>>>
>>>>Severi
>>>
>>>What I generally do is try to silence the warnings by rewriting my code
>>>as long as it is possible. Most of the time it is easy and it results in a
>>>safer, cleaner and more readable code (at least for me). When I can't, I include
>>>a local #pragma that I disable immediately after. Generally, I do not need this
>>>many times. Now, I have only one pragma valid for one line in my entire souce.
>>>I am pretty sure that I have more undetected bugs that pragmas :-)
>>>
>>>Miguel
>>
>>
>>
>>I do the same, except that I do not use #pragma to silence warnings.
>>
>>Whenever possible I rewrite the code so the compiler does not have to issue a
>>warning. Generally just adding an explicit cast does it, and it is free. In some
>>cases I have to add an instruction (to initialize a variable that the compiler
>>thought was not initialized, when actually it was). So I accept a performance
>>penalty in order to have a clean (warning free) code.
>>
>>Naturally my compiler's warning level is set to the maximum.
>>
>>I treat warnings the same way I treat errors: I just fix them.
>>
>>I don't understand why people write C or C++ programs without setting warnings
>>to their maximum level. I don't even understand why it is allowed to set the
>>warning level to a lower value in most C and C++ compilers.
>
>I agree with you philosophycally. However, sometimes some warnings are extremely
>annoying despite that C code is correct.
>
>The only pragma I have is this one:
>
>#pragma warning (push)
>#pragma warning (disable : 4146)
>
>static int
>bb_count_bits (BITBOARD a)
>{
> int count;
> UINT32 n;
>
> n = a.hf[0];
> for (count = 0; n; n -= (n & -n))
> count++;
>
> n = a.hf[1];
> for ( ; n; n -= (n & -n))
> count++;
> return count;
>}
>
>#pragma warning (pop)
>
>because it does not like negating an unsigned int. That is correct C
>code described in the standard. I understand that this could be a bug
>somewhere else, but here I really want to do that and I know
>what I am doing (I think :-)). I could fix it using ~(n-1) rather than -n
>but I do not want to change the idiom. Who knows, maybe I should.
>The point is that I understand if some people turn off some warnings in
>some particular cases if the use of some characteristic of the language is
>used heavily. However, turning off the warnings should be strongly discouraged
>IMHO.
>
>Miguel
Just insert the correct cast and you are done. I think it is less complicated
than adding code to disable then re-enable the warning.
You can forget to turn the warning on again and end up in trouble.
Don't forget: if it can happen, then it will happen!
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.