On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:33:32PM +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > Won't > > CFLAGS=blah ./configure ... > > work? I've used that before, but admittedly it's been a long time since > I've have to tweak the build process in such a way.
It won't work, blah would be added to the CFLAGS but the -Wall would still be there. > Because the compiler could have legitimate grounds for complaint that > might go unnoticed. Example: The "Return value is ignored" warning from > gcc 4.1.1 could highlight serious security problems which might > otherwise go unnoticed. Consider how easy it is to accidentally forget > checking return values of system calls like setuid(). Those "Return value is ignored" warnings are not triggered by -Wall, but I guess by -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 (I may be wrong). > So? Let's fix the warnings instead of just ignoring them wholesale. Agreed. But the developpers should set the CFLAGS for their favorite compilers the way they prefer to generate the warnings they like. -- Pat ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Registry-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/registry-list
