Patrice Dumas wrote:
> 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.
Hum. Annoying. Guess that's just another reason to hate auto*.
>
>> 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).
Fair enough, but I think the point still remains.
>
>> 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.
I'd prefer to always generate as many (within reason, of course)
warnings as possible.
Is it not possible to tell auto* to only add -Wall if it's using gcc?
--
Bardur Arantsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your
newsletter.
Homer Simpson, 'The Simpsons'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
