* Jonathan Wakely: >> Missing an include directory isn't necessarily the problem though, it >> is the missing headers that aren't present when they are included >> that would be - and that should trigger a build error for the missing >> file. What advantage does failing on this warning provide that the >> failure on the include file missing doesn't? > > Typically, yes, I'd expect a failure. But it's possible for code to do: > > #if __has_include(<foo.h>) > # include <foo.h> > // use features in that header > #else > // roll your own inferior version > #endif
I can see this might be a problem. I wouldn't object if someone submitted a change proposal for this, but they have to do the necessary work (full distribution rebuild to assess the impact of the change, preferably with an instrumented/wrapped toolchain to catch silently miscompiled autoconf probes). Thanks, Florian -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
