On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 17:50 +0900, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > 5:38PM ~/C/evas > echo $CFLAGS > -W -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -pipe -fvisibility=hidden > 5:39PM ~/C/evas > grep CFLAGS Makefile > CFLAGS = -W -Wall -Wno-unused-parameter -pipe -fvisibility=hidden > -D_GNU_SOURCE > > ooh look at that. works for me. has always worked for me - ever since. never > has been a need to screw with any configure file. there never should have > been. > never should be. IF people tart ADDING in stuff to screw with your cflags to > add warnings forcibly then you will never have a choice of what warnings to > use > and how as configure will battle with your flags.
I know this works if you set it *BEFORE* your run autotools, that's why I said, don't bother on that. I was talking about that the makefile does not respect that when calling make. > not people writing code - "gentoo users complaining about shit not compiling". > they have enough problems being able to read the output of gcc as-is. people > who write code can set their CFLAGS as part of their env "hey - i'm a > developer. i actually set CFLAGS". if you are a dev and dont set CFLAGS as > readily as you set PATH or other env vars.. then you need to re-think being a > dev :) Yes, but people set different values, even take you for example, you don't set -Wextra, others may not even set -Wall, that's why I'm suggesting to force those in. > as above. CFLAGS should already work. there should be no need for any > configure > script hackery anywhere. We do if we want to force it! > > i'd agree with that. so... why don't you just set CFLAGS then :) Because that won't force the other devs to do the same. > > > > other than that, -W's are the job of your CFLAGS and you can, if you want > > > them and to fix wanrings, set it up in your bashrc or have an alias that > > > changes your cflags to add them in etc. etc. eg: > > > > > > alias cflagwarn='export CFLAGS=$CFLAGS" -W -Wall -Wextra -Werror"' > > > > I don't want to fix warnings, I want people to fix their warnings. Using > > this method I can (and for example devilhorns does) fix people's > > warnings but it's not mine or devilhorn's or anyone's job. Mainly > > because we are not slaves that are used to fix people's warnings but > > also because warnings indicate code issues and us fixing them without > > fully understanding the code in question will just mean we'll probably > > break more than we fix. > > see above. i made my point on that. :) No you haven't this does not solve it for everyone, this way you are *trusting* all the devs to set this. While this may be ok with the core devs, it won't work as well with people sending patches (which will probably not set their CFLAGS correctly). > > that entirely depends. i've been doing this for a long time. i used to think > like you do. long ago. but then i spent enough time just sighing at gcc's > stupid warnings and wanting to just focus on getting shit done and not > cleaning > up every tiny little thing as as i go and not having to find the important > warnings from the host of unimportant ones in output. time taught me that > there > is a time and place to turn on such warnings and a time and place not to and > just get some code done - warnings or not. when you get to a warning fixing > binge.. you to -Werror... and you turn OFF make -j - as then you at least get > the error as the output before your compile barfs. you have to do BOTH > otherwise u get parallel makes competing and often having your actual errored. > warning quite a long way up. experience has taught me that the job of -W* > stuff > is the job of the developer - not configure. It is, but it's the job of the configure to make sure all devs use Wextra and Wall :P If you are in a state you "just want to get things done" disable warnings. If you trust yourself and your CFLAGS enough without warnings --disable-warnings but at least, if they are on by default, it'll make you as a developer aware that we expect warning-less builds. In other words, I don't really care where/how it's done, I care about one thing: I want the code to compile without warnings with gcc's Wall Wextra, why? Because it usually leads to better code. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
