[CF-Devel] Code documentation? Warnings cleaning?

[crossfire-devel at archives.real-time.com]

>
     
       Additional comments is never bad.  It's just that generally, most 
     
     >
     
      developers have 'better' things to do than go through the code and write 
     
     >
     
      comments (at minimum, I'd say there are some sections of code that work, 
     
     >
     
      but which are really ugly and could be rewritten as a higher priority 
     
     >
     
      than writing comments).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       If there are specific questions about code, I'd hope people working on 
     
     >
     
      it would just ask - given the amount of code, a lot of work to document 
     
     >
     
      it all. However, if people need specific areas documented because they 
     
     >
     
      are working on it, something can be done.
     
     
Well, I was thinking of doing in parallel documentation & warning cleaning. 
Like, fixing a few warnings in a function, if it has some comments at top 
make'em doxygen comments, else write a few lines (i guess documenting in this 
format isn't bad?).
This way it'll be done small portion by small portion.

>
     
       I'd like to ge a better idea of the nature of all those compiles.  
     
     >
     
      Perhaps an error log can be posted someplace?
     
     
I can mail you privately the full (or partial) warning compilation log.
Or I could post it on the messageboard, or somewhere on the wiki?

>
     
       I'm a little concerned in that some of these could break compiling on 
     
     >
     
      unix. Eg, different API for windows or whatever else.  It'd be a shame 
     
     >
     
      for you to fix all those, and then have them undone because it breaks it 
     
     >
     
      working on unix.
     
     
This is something I plan on testing. Knoppix is there to lemme boot into Linux 
fast & make sure it compiles there too :)
But yes, I will have to take much care.

The black point I can see is: a minor fix, that compiles correctly, but breaks 
something later on (like: adding an explicit conversion in a signed/unsigned 
comparison by casting the unsigned to signed, which breaks because the default 
compiler behaviour was to convert signed to unsigned AND that was required by 
the code at that point...)

>
     
       Also, there are some number of errors that just can't be 
     
     >
     
      fixed/eliminated. Anything from loader.c, or the other .c files which 
     
     >
     
      are generated from .l files really can't be fixed.  This is because it 
     
     >
     
      is code that lex generates which is resulting in the warnings.   So 
     
     >
     
      having those files produce warnings is just a fact of life.
     
     
Granted, and I don't plan on fixing all those warnings in any case :)
(fun lexx can't make warning-less code, but nothing's perfect, i guess :))
I don't mind some warnings, but right now, under Windows at least, there are 
just too many for my taste... And I'm afraid some hide real troubles, too...

Nicolas 'Ryo'


_______________________________________________
crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
     
     
     https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel