[rmtools][php-5.4] Build error between r and 311062

hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Richard Quadling rquadling@gmail.com
wrote:

This is an automatic mail from the rmtoool's build bots.

New build errors have been introduced between
and 311062.

The errors are:

php-5.4, build ts-windows-vc9-x86:
, NMAKE, error, U1077, '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
9.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe"' : return code '0x2',

Full logs are available at (htmlized versions too):

http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/php-5.4/r311062

With 3,475 warnings in the Win32 x86 VC9 nts build, how do you see the
wood for the trees?

If the warnings can be ignored, why not suppress them?

Ideally almost all could be suppressed. However there are many false
positive or cases that can't happen (theoretically). Keeping in mind
that this log is the static analyzer logs. Once I got the new machines
running, both normal and analyzers log will be published.

The key then is to detect the delta between two revisions (should be
up soon) and then fix those already.

That being said, a warning php has been a sweet from many of us but
some devs simply do not want that ;-).

Cheers,

Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

--

I would guess, that
"That being said, a warning php has been a sweet from many of us but
some devs simply do not want that ;-)."
should be
"That being said, a warning-free php has been a sweet dream for many of us
but
some devs simply do not want that ;-)."

sorry, maybe the problem is on my end, but couldn't decode tha without
fuzzing :)

Tyrael

hi,

This is an automatic mail from the rmtoool's build bots.

New build errors have been introduced between
and 311062.

The errors are:

php-5.4, build ts-windows-vc9-x86:
, NMAKE, error, U1077, '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe"' : return code '0x2',

Full logs are available at (htmlized versions too):

http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/php-5.4/r311062

With 3,475 warnings in the Win32 x86 VC9 nts build, how do you see the
wood for the trees?

If the warnings can be ignored, why not suppress them?

Ideally almost all could be suppressed. However there are many false
positive or cases that can't happen (theoretically). Keeping in mind
that this log is the static analyzer logs. Once I got the new machines
running, both normal and analyzers log will be published.

The key then is to detect the delta between two revisions (should be
up soon) and then fix those already.

That being said, a warning php has been a sweet from many of us but
some devs simply do not want that ;-).

Cheers,

Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org

"some devs simply do not want that"

Why not? I'm guessing the amount of effort required to resolve false
positives outweighs the benefit.

When I was taught programming, compiler warnings were explained as the
compiler telling me that I had not made my intent 100% crystal clear
and that the compiler was making a good guess but possibly an
incorrect or inappropriate one. Not a bug per se, but just an error in
judgement.

And when you are compiling across so many different systems, would it
not be beneficial to at least re-examine some of these warnings. Just
in case ...?

Or am I just wasting my time and you all know exactly which warnings
are just junk? Are you all that good?

Richard.

--
Richard Quadling
Twitter : EE : Zend
@RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY