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.

Cody


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.
---
Roy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK
Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base.
Download it for free now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel