ESP32 Forum

I suggest to fix the cause(s) of the warning(s)/error(s) instead of disabling it (e.g. https://twdev.blog/2024/07/cpp_overloaded_virtuals/).

If you "need" a certain construct which gives a warning/error, you can selectively control the warning behavior for that piece of code via gcc's Diagnostic Pragmas.

// main.cpp
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include "Arduino.h"

extern "C" void app_main(void)
{
    while (true) {
        printf("Hello from app_main!\n");
        sleep(1);
    }
}

cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 3.5)
include($ENV{IDF_PATH}/tools/cmake/project.cmake)
project(app-template)

# See the build system documentation in IDF programming guide
# for more information about component CMakeLists.txt files.

idf_component_register(
    SRCS main.cpp         # list the source files of this component
    INCLUDE_DIRS        # optional, add here public include directories
    PRIV_INCLUDE_DIRS   # optional, add here private include directories
    REQUIRES            # optional, list the public requirements (component names)
    PRIV_REQUIRES       # optional, list the private requirements
)

target_compile_options(${COMPONENT_LIB} PRIVATE "-Werror"  "-Wall" "-Wextra" "-Wpedantic" "-Weffc++" "-O3" "-std=c++23" )

but there's no reason on earth why I should follow ESP's warning/error policy and not my own.

and there's nothing to discuss further unless you bring a real solution.

but there's no reason on earth why I should follow ESP's warning/error policy and not my own.

Some might see being compatible with the SDK you're using as a reason. Some might say that there's no reason on earth why your code should be producing warnings in the first place.

So you already know that you actually should change your workflow...

I'm sure someone else will bring you a real solution soon enough then.

Seems quite basic to me, but it will fail to build. And if you're telling me that I have to change my policy to match IDF's, then sorry but i strongly disagree, and there's nothing to discuss further unless you bring a real solution.

Bye
Andrea

Seems quite basic to me, but it will fail to build. And if you're telling me that I have to change my policy to match IDF's, then sorry but i strongly disagree, and there's nothing to discuss further unless you bring a real solution.

Bye
Andrea

You forgot to add "#" at the very beginning. May be this is why it fails to build.

If you want to use your own policy, just add #pragma which disables warnings.
Since you are going to fix them anyway, this temporary solution (#pragma) is ok.

In general, if you are developing something using SDK the general rule is to use their constraints. Probably they are there for a reason.

I just want them not to be errors. The problem is that then those warnings are also applied to ESP