Am Montag, 9. April 2007 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: > Dennis Schridde schreef: > > Am Montag, 9. April 2007 schrieb Dennis Schridde: > >> Am Montag, 9. April 2007 schrieb Giel van Schijndel: > >>> Author: muggenhor > >>> Date: Mon Apr 9 17:02:04 2007 > >>> New Revision: 1048 > >>> > >>> URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/warzone?rev=1048&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> * add -Werror-implicit-function-declaration to CFLAGS > >> > >> Quoting man:gcc > >> > >> -Werror-implicit-function-declaration > >> This warning is enabled by -Wall (as a warning, not an error). > >> > >> -Werror > >> Make all warnings into errors. > > > > So this is not needed for debug=strict. (Well, you didn't add it > > there...) And for debug=yes it is IMO not wanted, since yes!=strict. > > Well, actually I did add it there on purpose (non-strict) since most > implicit declarations later on simply result in linker errors (and > linker errors are IMO difficult to trace). Many things are difficult to trace. If we'd add them all, we'd end up with -Werror...
> And aside from that, implicit function declarations are (almost? can't > think of any justified case at all) always very, very bad practice. So > when considering that to be bad, one should not allow the compiler to > accept it. Sure they are bad practice. That's why you shouldn't commit patches which add new warnings. To check that you can run with debug=strict. I don't see a reason why you should also add this to the warning mode. > But then again, it's just my opinion that implicit function declarations > are very bad. You can always add custom CFLAGS by specifying ./configure CFLAGS='-Wwhatever' But maybe others have a different opinion... --Dennis
pgpuKf7lJX0cV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
