David Levine <levin...@acm.org> writes:
> Ralph wrote:
>> I've since overridden configure's CFLAGS to add `-pedantic
>> -ansi', but I wonder if m4/cppflags.m4 should attempt these
>> and add them if they work?
> We used to do this, but I removed them in commit 987b10b3. My
> thinking was that CFLAGS is up to the user. I still think that's
> the right thing to do. We do add -Wall -Wextra with gcc but those
> don't cause compilation failure (and I've thought about removing
> them).
Note that '-ansi -pedantic' produces warnings about all constructs that
aren't in C89, which is a much harsher restriction than has any real-world
relevance today. I could see a bit more justification for '-std=c99
-pedantic', but that is still kind of problematic. If you've made a
configure test for some feature, found it works, and are using it, you
don't really want warnings about it.
regards, tom lane
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
