I've created a new patch (attached) incorporating your suggestions. See my comments inline below.
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Turn on compiler warnings by default for AC_PROG_CC, > AC_PROG_CXX & AC_PROG_FC > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:49:11 -0500 > CC: [email protected] > ... > it makes sense to go ahead and add it. This suggests that you need to > carefully word > the "IFVALID" macro output, something like this: > checking if -Wno-such-option can be added to CFLAGS... yes > so that users know that it "can be added", vs. "is supported". Done, with the wording you suggested. On my system (gcc version is 4.8.1), I tested the gcc oddity you mentioned and found that it only applied to flags of the form -Wno-*. E.g., -Wnosuchoption and -Wjunk would still not be added, but -Wno-way would be added and harmlessly ignored. > ./doc/autoconf.texi:23579: warning: `(' follows defined name > `AC_APPEND_FLAG_IFVALID' instead of whitespace. > > Can you fix the documentation to remove those warnings? Done. For some reason, those warning never showed for me. How fitting... :-) > Also, I have a a few other minor comments about the documentation text. > I think the text should FIRST say what it does, then later who uses it. Done. I *was* inconsistent on a couple of macros, and that was going against the established documentation style. > It should also cross-reference other related macros if the user might want to > use that one instead, > in particular, I think AC_APPEND_FLAG should cross-reference to > AC_APPEND_FLAG_IFVALID, > because I think most users would typically use that instead (or at least want > to know about it). Also done. Thank you for your helpful comments. Let me know what you think of the latest. Best regards, Dale Visser
merged_patch_2.diff
Description: Binary data
