Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove -Werror=aggregate-return from travis flags #529

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 19, 2017

Conversation

techee
Copy link
Member

@techee techee commented Feb 18, 2017

While in general one should avoid returning big structs for performance
reasons, it's no big problem for small structs and it can lead to more
readable code.

Having this check on for everything seems to be too strict - if someone
is returning big structs like crazy, someone will probably notice during
the review. Otherwise it's no problem.

While in general one should avoid returning big structs for performance
reasons, it's no big problem for small structs and it can lead to more
readable code.

Having this check on for everything seems to be too strict - if someone
is returning big structs like crazy, someone will probably notice during
the review. Otherwise it's no problem.
@elextr
Copy link
Member

elextr commented Feb 18, 2017

Agree and the same should happen with Geany itself, despite @b4n (IMHO old fashioned ugly and unneccessary) request.

Copy link
Member

@b4n b4n left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are other problems why Travis doesn't pass because of lineoperations (cppcheck complaining about useless checks), but this part LGTM.

I still think I prefer not to see too much aggregate returns in Geany, but in GP I don't mind. And for Geany itself I need to reconsider today's implications, maybe it's indeed kind of pointless.

@frlan frlan merged commit 8e511d1 into geany:master Feb 19, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants