this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
47 points (94.3% liked)

Technology

88162 readers
2498 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ProfessorScience@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Another option is to disable the warning locally [...] But this is compiler-specific and noisy. It also does not explain the real issue to anyone reading the code.

I don't understand this logic. Surely disabling the warning is directly explaining the actual issue, that the code emits a false positive warning for specific compilers and conditions? That the false_but_compiler_does_not_know_it_ thing is apparently the better way to convey what's going on seems kind of ridiculous.

My thought was that they may have to disable it differently for each compiler which might not be pretty, but yeah seems much easier to just do that as needed than to bend over backwards to look clever AND introduce unnecessary runtime effects at the same time.

load more comments (3 replies)