I said:
> > It appears to me that the
> > code is just trying to see if "-pedantic" *WORKS*, and if it does,
> > then using that as evidence that "-Wall" would work.
Zack Weinberg said:
> Oh, is that what "-pedantic % -Wall" means? I had the impression it was
> going to try each one in isolatio
Zack Weinberg writes:
> -ansi, however, should not be in there at all; it doesn't just turn on
> strict conformance mode, it turns on strict *C89* conformance mode,
> which is often wrong for new code. And even nowadays, strict
> conformance mode in general tends to break system headers.
Second
On 2014-01-17 4:02 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
Zack Weinberg said:
For GCC I would be quite hesitant to turn anything on beyond -Wall
without explicit buy-in from the project, but I like the idea of
enabling -Wall by default.
I pretty sure that's what Dale Visser's patch does. It says: +
"-pe
Dale Visser said on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:30:19 -0500:
> The inspiration for this comes from an earlier discussion on the 'autoconf'
> list: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2013-10/msg00025.html
> The basic idea is to overall enhance the security of code built using
> autoconf, by turnin
