Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: constexpr keyword is unnecessary Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 05:15:13 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <86o72rrxr2.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <87y12jpxvl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87plnvpgb9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86cyjmuoop.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86r07ru289.fsf@linuxsc.com> <44msie3mrn.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 14:15:18 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f7fe65dae32432817f6ac65ae544dd52"; logging-data="2815658"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DXZ20xGA2P/QGHqdROVskUZaSPOKBbMM=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:los9xdQ53sPRn5fk5vjEICCQvTM= sha1:sa353GZ9bRx+GZrCa9ZLDcox8Wk= Bytes: 3469 Lowell Gilbert writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch writes: >>> >>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> >>>>> Yes, we have a similar policy. Works well. In the odd case >>>>> where one cannot eliminate the warning, a simple compiler option >>>>> to not test that particulary condition for that particular >>>>> compilation unit is a straightforward solution. >>>> >>>> So the actual policy is to fix all warnings except in >>>> cases where it's inconvenient to fix them? >>> >>> No, I never said that. >> >> I didn't say you did. I asked a question because I didn't see >> any clear statement of what the policy is that was being >> followed. And I still haven't. > > Not in so many words, no. Here is one that I have seen work well > in recent years: the code must compile without warnings. The > usefulness of this policy is strictly in making sure that any new > warnings are immediately noticed and considered, but are not an > ongoing distraction. You don't say what warning conditions are tested, or who gets to decide which conditions are included in the set to be satisfied. > The question of how to shut up a warning that is truly innocuous > is not part of this policy. In my own opinion, it will often > require its own policy. That is a separate topic, because it can > quite reasonably vary depending on a number of factors in the > development environment, most notably the compiler itself. ISTM that what can be done to remove a warning must be part of the policy of not allowing warnings. If there is no statement about what can be done to remove warnings then the "no-warning" policy is toothless. In any case no policy for this aspect is given, and what I'm looking for is a clear statement of policy. Was that somehow not obvious from my previous comment?