I concur with "for" on dbg/devel

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Cody Permann <codypermann@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll vote "for" on dbg/devel modes.  At least until things are cleaned up.


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Roy Stogner <roystgnr@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Dec 2013, Derek Gaston wrote:

> I guess I'll vote against adding this to opt: but it's not a strong vote.

My vote "for" isn't a strong vote, either.  Ben seems fairly neutral,
so unless someone else chimes in on the "for" side I guess I'll leave
it be.

No objections from anyone to me adding -Wconversion in dbg/devel
modes, though?

> My main worry is that we'll spew tons of warnings from includes
> further upstream...

In theory we'll eventually be able to shut those up with
ignore_warnings.h/restore_warnings.h.  In practice those are nearly
useless with old compilers and we're not taking advantage of all the
control that the newest gcc allows.

Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
Libmesh-devel mailing list