On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:18:09 +0100, Colomban wrote:
Le 13/03/2011 15:08, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:52:24 +0100, Thomas wrote:
On 13.03.2011 14:50, Enrico Tröger wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:39:29 +0100, Thomas wrote:
On 13.03.2011 14:35, Enrico Tröger wrote:
>> Something like ./configure --enable-extra-c-warnings (or >> shorter if you prefer ^^) ...so this sounds good to me. Maybe that option could also display a hint to check HACKING for more information about flags.
Why disabled by default? I don't quite understand that. Disabled by default defeats the whole purpose.
Agreed.
Portability.
I thought the warnings are only enabled if the compiler understands them anyway (so portability is not an issue)? That's what the initial mail about the warnings said.
Yep. I currently implemented the check by checking whether the compilation of a tiny, perfectly well-formed, C program works. Hopefully a compiler that don't understand the flag would fail (GCC does), and at least won't complain more when actually compiling the code.
As I said, I didn't read all of the thread, shame on me. Still, not sure whether it can be reliably checked whether the compiler supports all the options and/or whether it's worth checking this.
Whether it's reliable is maybe a good point, but as said above, if the compiler succeed to compile a test program with the flag on, I see no reason it wouldn't do with the real sources. And I think it's *very* unlikely a compiler understand the flag in another way than another -- at least GCC's flags are pretty explicit.
Though, if you all want this, I won't hinder you. At least not for G-P.
There would be anyway at least a way to disable them (say, --disable-extra-c-warnings). I can easily add an information message when the flag is on to tell the user she might disable them with the option if you think it's useful :)
I do. Sounds good so far, let's hope it won't break anything.
Regards, Enrico