On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:41:25PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:42:12AM -0700, Steve Peters via RT wrote: > > > > Anyway, it's worth noting that although one of functions actually > > > doesn't > > > return anything, it is documented as returning a PMC *. So either the > > > documentation or the function is wrong in parrotobject.pmc and should > > > be > > > fixed. > > > > Unfortunately, I can't find a gcc warning flag that would seem to catch > > this sort of situation > > either. > > I don't think that it's possible to make this non-conformity a fatal heresy > :-( > (gcc --spanish-inquisition)
As long as this doesn't involve the "comfy chair"-type inquisition gcc seems to like, we'd be alright. As an aside, I've been using "-Wc++-compat", my discovery from last week that I added to bleadperl, to help me find these issues so far. Right now, Parrot is not ready to compile with this full time, but I'm hoping it will be by the end of the weekend. > Getting parrot to build under -ansi -pedantic is left as an exercise to the > reader. Likely to a reader on *BSD who wants to apply for a microgrant. > (Even Solaris doesn't have headers that are clean with -ansi -pedantic. Which > surprises me. Solaris is usually very clean and well engineered throughout) > > Can Intel or Sun's compilers be coaxed into being suitably grumpy about this? > If so, do we have a machine capable of smoking them? > And is it viable (or good) for parrot smoke failures to reach this list, much > like most people configure their Perl 5 smokers to send the black smoke to > p5p? > Intel's errors do not seem sensitive enough to pick it up, although HP-UX did. I haven't looked at Solaris yet, but I'm certain it would pick up this failure as well. Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
