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

Fix compiler and linker warnings #1605

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

betatim
Copy link
Member

@betatim betatim commented Feb 1, 2017

Some trivial fix ups to reduce the number of compiler warnings generated by khmer.

@luizirber do you know what the -mmacosx-version-min=10.7 really does? I don't really know more than what you can deduce from the name, which makes me wonder if adding it breaks something (we aren't testing for)?

  • Is it mergeable?
  • make test Did it pass the tests?

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 2, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #1605 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #1605   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    0.06%   0.06%           
======================================
  Files          78      78           
  Lines        9792    9792           
  Branches     2457    2457           
======================================
  Hits            6       6           
  Misses       9786    9786
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/oxli/assembler.cc 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️
src/oxli/traversal.cc 0% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update edabebf...80b32b6. Read the comment docs.

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Feb 14, 2017

Ready for review! @luizirber, @camillescott, @standage , or @ctb

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Feb 14, 2017

Somewhat related, my terminal is filling up with large number of copies of this warning. It has "always" been there but usually only once, is the duplication related to the multiple template instantiations we do for the read parser?

In file included from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/basic.h:62:0,
                 from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/seq_io.h:44,
                 from lib/read_parsers.hh:41,
                 from lib/hashtable.hh:57,
                 from lib/kmer_filters.cc:40:
third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/basic/test_system.h:92:10: warning: ‘template<class> class std::auto_ptr’ is deprecated [-Wdeprecated-declarations]
     std::auto_ptr<Test> instance;
          ^~~~~~~~
In file included from /usr/include/c++/6.3.1/bits/locale_conv.h:41:0,
                 from /usr/include/c++/6.3.1/locale:43,
                 from /usr/include/c++/6.3.1/iomanip:43,
                 from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/basic/debug_test_system.h:46,
                 from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/basic/basic_debug.h:52,
                 from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/basic.h:52,
                 from third-party/seqan/core/include/seqan/seq_io.h:44,
                 from lib/read_parsers.hh:41,
                 from lib/hashtable.hh:57,
                 from lib/kmer_filters.cc:40:
/usr/include/c++/6.3.1/bits/unique_ptr.h:49:28: note: declared here
   template<typename> class auto_ptr;
                            ^~~~~~~~

@standage
Copy link
Member

is the duplication related to the multiple template instantiations we do for the read parser?

SeqAn is heavily templated as well, so that may also be a factor. There are some warnings I see duplicated several times during compilation, but I haven't kept track of which they were and haven't seen a substantial increase since introducing templating to the read parser.

Copy link
Member

@standage standage left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Feb 14, 2017

Ok. For sure the original sin comes from seqan being a bit old, hence the warnings. Downside to all the "visual noise" is that I train myself to ignore it all which means sometimes you miss a new warning :-/

@standage
Copy link
Member

Downside to all the "visual noise" is that I train myself to ignore it all which means sometimes you miss a new warning :-/

Yep, the struggle is real

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Feb 20, 2017

@standage this can be merged right?

@standage
Copy link
Member

"Yes", given the caveats in our current #khmer@slack discussion.

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Feb 20, 2017

Had forgotten about that, let's wait for a decision re: merging into feature/cython_all_the_things

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Jul 27, 2017

I am impressed merging master just worked. 😀

@betatim
Copy link
Member Author

betatim commented Jul 27, 2017

From scrolling through the travis output there are less warnings, I think. Merge first, squash more warnings later?

@standage
Copy link
Member

standage commented Jul 27, 2017 via email

@standage
Copy link
Member

standage commented Jul 27, 2017 via email

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

3 participants