Grischka, I know rather well the magic of configure.ac.
In numerus projects I own, I use code like:
AX_CHECK_COMPILE_FLAG([-Wall],
[CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wall"])
AX_CHECK_COMPILE_FLAG([-Wextra],
[CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wextra"])
AX_CHECK_COMPILE_FLAG([-Wshadow],
[CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wshadow"])
AX_CHECK_COMPILE_FLAG([-Wunused],
[CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wunused"])
To detect what options CC supports.
With it, clang gives me false positive. i.e. configure pretends clang
supports an option which is then refused when actually used.
In case of tcc, we'll have to deal with scripts that have to test the exact
version of clang used and supported flags.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
On Behalf Of grischka
Sent: mardi 9 mai 2017 19:33
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] tiny bit of lint
Larry Doolittle wrote:
> grischka -
>
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 05:44:28PM +0200, grischka wrote:
>> If people are going to use clang more likely, can't you add something
>> to configure for clang to turn off some silly warnings?
>> That would be USEFUL, for example ;)
>
> The clang flag to turn off this warning is -Wno-string-plus-int
>
> That brings up another issue, which is that tinycc's cute little
> configure script that figures out which warning (or lack of warning)
> flags are compatible with $CC doesn't work with clang.
Yes, the configure warning magic doesn't work with clang. And hence my
question was:
Can you fix this?
Means: recognize if $CC is clang and implement some method to disable its
warnings in configure. Can you do this?
That could be useful in future for similar problems.
Otherwise I see no point in fixing people or fixing peoples' style, in a
multi-author project.
There is a property of original authorship on each line that you did not
write and that property should be respected. This includes diverging
personal style and maybe even technical flaws.
--- grischka
> I have no opinion on whether adding the nice plural to two tinycc
> messages is worth the extra space and time. I don't think that ((i >
> 1) ? "s" : "") is a good choice. Any of "s" + (i<2), &"s"[i<2], and
> just a universal plural "symbols" (like it was before 2d3b9559 from
> Feb 2017) is fine with me.
>
> This is a lot of discussion for two lines of code. I guess that's
> mostly my fault, too.
>
> - Larry
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
