Examples of using Compiler warnings in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Winsock related compiler warnings are fixed;
Here we have a complete analogy with the compiler warnings.
As you can see, the compiler warnings are good, but they are not enough.
Again, let's try it with compiler warnings.
Compiler warnings are turned off in header files in an incorrect way.
Also, there were several compiler warnings issued.
Programmers examine compiler warnings regularly, not just once in 3 years before some release, don't they?
They just don't know how to use compiler warnings properly.
It is difficult to diagnose such errors as the construct of the explicit type conversion suppresses the compiler warnings.
It's not a good idea to enable compiler warnings once a year, is it?
Especially when code is syntactically flawless and doesn't trigger compiler warnings.
You will also be notified with compiler warnings if any of the constants is deprecated.
View static code analysis as an extension to compiler warnings.
For purposes of this criterion, compiler warnings and"safe" language modes do not count as static code analysis tools.
So, rejecting static analysis is as silly as turning off all compiler warnings.
As an analogy, programmers regularly review the compiler warnings, not just 3 times a year before release.
A static analyzer is a higher-level andmore intelligent version of compiler warnings.
For example, programmers regularly review the compiler warnings; not just 3 times a year before the release.
If people say compiler warnings give them a false sense of security, the problem is with them, not with the compiler. .
I think that everybody always checks the compiler warnings, not just one a month?!
Lastly, if compiler warnings do more harm than they do good, then it's a sign of the programmer's professional inaptitude rather than skill.
Hopefully you don't check the list of compiler warnings once a year, do you?
I have got carried away a bit butI had to explain why a static analyzer is a more powerful tool than compiler warnings.
It's just like keeping all compiler warnings disabled while working on a project and enabling them just before the release.
The reason why it skips code like this is that programmers often use it to suppress compiler warnings or messages from other analyzers.
Moreover, some of the compiler warnings were disabled by pragma warning, and even there were several bugs there, that I will speak about later.
The security weakness was caused by changes made to the openssl code by a Debian developer in response to compiler warnings of apparently redundant code.
At least one static code analysis tool(beyond compiler warnings and"safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language.
In whole, this warning copies the compiler warning about converting a 64-bit type to a 32-bit one.
The result of such a supposition is that programmers suppress the compiler warning with an explicit type conversion.