* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:11:27AM CET: > [Ralf Wildenhues] > > > > If some code later calls it like > > > > process_option_list (first-set-of-options); > > > > process_option_list (second-set-of-options); > > > > > > > > then things will go wrong again. I suspect that it will mean that > > > > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([foreign -Wno-portability]) > > > > AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = gnu > > > > > > > > won't do what we want. Hmm. What exactly is it that we want to happen > > > > in this case? Should gnu override -Wno-portability if specified in a > > > > (to-be) higher order place? > > > > > [Stefano Lattarini] > > > I assumed without saying that yes, this was to be the intended behaviour. > > > And I still think it should be. Sorry for not having been explicit about > > > that before. > [Ralf Wildenhues] > > > > I agree that it should be, but this, too, should be documented (in > > autoconf.texi and maybe also NEWS) and tested, when it works. > > > What about the attached patch? It also adds a test for another situation > I hadn't thought about previously. > > OK to apply the patch in a new commit between [PATCH 2/9] and [PATCH 3/9]?
Well yes, but why omit the documentation bits that I asked for? (efficient communication, and all that) Thanks, Ralf > Subject: [PATCH] More tests on warnings and strictness. > > * tests/warnings-strictness-interactions.test: New test. > * tests/warnings-unknown.test: Likewise. > * tests/Makefile.am (TESTS): Update.
