* G. Branden Robinson: > Perhaps the thing to do here is have, <gulp>, yet another command-line > option for GCC. The Ada language did something similar a couple of > decades ago to tighten up the language for hard real-time demands, with > what it called the "Ravenscar profile".[1] That proved successful (as > successful as anything was in poor neglected Ada).
The C++ front end calls this -fpermissive, which would probably match here as well. > Whatever its name, some advantages to this approach are that > distributors could opt-in to such a thing, make it a clear matter of > policy, and more easily track adoption and progress. You could also > version the contour much like the C standard itself. I'm not sure if we need this fine level of control. Either you want to compile at all costs, or you are willing to make the effort to clean up the sources. At a package level, the required changes are almost always minor (but of course there are packages that are different), so fixing everything in one go (and the implied commitment to keep up with future cleanups_ is not very onerous. For one package, that is. I'm not sure if opt-in is that easy because packages drop build flags all the time. Compiler wrapper scripts might be required. The instrumented compiler we use in Fedora sometimes reveals things that go unnoticed with other approaches. Thanks, Florian
