On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2016, at 11:09 AM, David Morsberger <d...@morsberger.com> > wrote: > > > This is what I am also tracking down. It has to do with the way cmake is > instantiating the compiler. The --serialized-diagnostics option is what > appears to be hiding the error. > > --serialize-diagnostics takes an argument, which is the name of a file to > which the diagnostics are written, in a binary format. > Yes, there is a binary .dia file generated and I cannot find any information on the format or tools to read it. > Clang documentation sucks. Srsly. The man page doesn't enumerate the -W > options; the website: > > > http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#options-to-control-error-and-warning-messages > > does, but I'm not sure how to get the manual for an *arbitrary* version of > Clang (the GCC folks are kind enough to provide online manuals, complete > with listings of compiler flags, for multiple versions), and the word > "serialize" appears nowhere on that page. > Welcome to my world :) I've searched all over for information and searched my filesystem for any reference to it. > > It might be that, when the tests are done, ld is being run directly, > rather than by the gcc/clang driver, and that -as-needed isn't getting > passed to it. It obviously is getting passed when the actual *build* is > done. > I may ask the gcc/clang team why the different behavior when --serialized argument is and is not used. > > Perhaps when CMake was being designed, its designers should have looked at > the documentation for another configuration system - I think it's called > "autoconf" or something such as that - and noticed that it offered not only > macros to try compiling a file ("compiling" as in "turning a source file > into an object file, without trying to link anything"), but macros to try > *linking* things, which can come in handy if, say, to pick a purely > *hypothetical* example, you're trying to see whether a given linker flag > works. > Think of how "boring" life would be if there was only one way of doing things. > > Or perhaps they mistakenly had the attitude that "we take care of all the > platform details, so you don't have to". > I WILL find out how they take care of the platform details.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
