Thread: Re: [Cppunit-devel] Fixing warnings in cppunit-1.12.0
Brought to you by:
blep
From: CppUnit d. m. l. <cpp...@li...> - 2008-02-12 21:16:19
|
Hi - I've produced a patch which quiets compiler warnings for cppunit-1.12.0under g++- 4.1. Is there some way I can contribute this patch to the project? In more detail: I work in an environment where we do not allow compiler warnings about our code to persist. In detail, we run g++ (4.1 in my case) with "-ansi -W -Wall -Werror" and fail the build on any warning. All this would be fine, except that we get compiler warnings from the cppunit headers themselves: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- include/cppunit/extensions/TestFixtureFactory.h:16: warning: 'class CppUnit::TestFixtureFactory' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor include/cppunit/extensions/TestFixtureFactory.h:29: warning: 'class CppUnit::ConcretTestFixtureFactory' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For our own local purposes, I decided to patch 1.12.0 such that it would build under our no-warnings setting without problems. The patch is relatively small - covering 15 files and very few lines of code. I'm currently maintaining the patch locally, but I think it would make more sense to feed it back to the cppunit project since I think that it's broadly useful to have the unit-test framework be sufficiently clean to allow high levels of compiler-based checking without problems. (I know I'm not the only person with this issue -- see, for instance, http://www.calitko.org/source-talk/682.) So the question to you is: what next? Does this seem like a worthwhile patch submission for cppunit? If so, should I post the patch to this list? Or send it to someone particular? Is a patch against 1.12.0 good enough, or should I generate a patch against the latest CVS sources? I've never tried to feed stuff back to a sourceforge project before, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Thanks! Dan |
From: CppUnit d. m. l. <cpp...@li...> - 2008-02-20 04:59:33
|
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:16:02PM -0500, CppUnit development mailing list wrote: > I've produced a patch which quiets compiler warnings for > cppunit-1.12.0under g++- > 4.1. Is there some way I can contribute this patch to the project? Of course there is! > So the question to you is: what next? Does this seem like a worthwhile > patch submission for cppunit? If so, should I post the patch to this list? > Or send it to someone particular? Is a patch against 1.12.0 good enough, > or should I generate a patch against the latest CVS sources? I've never > tried to feed stuff back to a sourceforge project before, so I'm not quite > sure how to proceed. This sounds like a worthwhile patch. To increase your chances of having it applied: make it easy on us developers by creating a patch against CVS HEAD. The preferred method to submit a patch is the patch tracker page at http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=11795&atid=311795 Thanks, -Steve |
From: CppUnit d. m. l. <cpp...@li...> - 2008-02-20 22:27:23
|
> > > So the question to you is: what next? Does this seem like a worthwhile > > patch submission for cppunit? If so, should I post the patch to this > list? > > Or send it to someone particular? Is a patch against 1.12.0 good > enough, > > or should I generate a patch against the latest CVS sources? I've never > > tried to feed stuff back to a sourceforge project before, so I'm not > quite > > sure how to proceed. > > This sounds like a worthwhile patch. To increase your chances of > having it applied: make it easy on us developers by creating a patch > against CVS HEAD. > > The preferred method to submit a patch is the patch tracker page > at http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=11795&atid=311795 Okay -- I just submitted the patch against CVS HEAD to the patch tracker. It seems that 1.12.1 fixed a number of the issues that I had in 1.12.0, making the patch somewhat less interesting but hopefully still worthwhile. Please let me know if you have any problems with the patch. Dan |
From: CppUnit d. m. l. <cpp...@li...> - 2008-02-12 21:50:30
|
Hi! I think this is a worthwile patch to be included in cppunit. For instance, I'm also working in a project where we want to avoid warnings from GCC following the guidelines of Scott Meyer's "Effective C++". Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2008 schrieb CppUnit development mailing list: > I've produced a patch which quiets compiler warnings for > cppunit-1.12.0under g++- > 4.1. Is there some way I can contribute this patch to the project? [...] > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > include/cppunit/extensions/TestFixtureFactory.h:16: warning: 'class > CppUnit::TestFixtureFactory' has virtual functions but non-virtual > destructor > > include/cppunit/extensions/TestFixtureFactory.h:29: warning: 'class > CppUnit::ConcretTestFixtureFactory' has virtual functions but non-virtual > destructor > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] > So the question to you is: what next? Does this seem like a worthwhile > patch submission for cppunit? If so, should I post the patch to this list? -- Marcel Winandy |