[Geany-devel] Ideas on increasing quality of plugins
lists.ban at xxxxx
Sun Mar 13 14:18:09 UTC 2011
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.
>> 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 :)
More information about the Devel