Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 2013-07-25 11:25, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> Brad King wrote: >>> On 07/25/2013 09:16 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >>>> Should we treat the INTERFACE_INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES of all IMPORTED >>>> targets as SYSTEM includes automatically? >>> >>> I don't think so because one could be importing targets from a >>> dependency that was just built as part of a "superbuild" and may want to >>> see the warnings. >> >> I considered that, but if you're building it as part of a superbuild, >> you'll still get the warning when building the dependency itself. > > Not necessarily; library A may provide a utility header that it doesn't > actually use internally, and library B may use it and produce a warning.
Edge case. Even then, library A should have a unit test which attempts to compile all of its headers with all warnings enabled. In Qt every module has a 'headersclean' unit test which does exactly that. https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/blobs/dev/mkspecs/features/qt_headersclean.prf > (Besides there is more chance of noticing a warning the more times it > trips. For that matter, wouldn't this defeat the purpose in the original > post of being able to include Qt as non-SYSTEM?) The purpose in the bug report is not to include Qt as non-SYSTEM, but the opposite. I don't see any reason for downstreams to include Qt headers as non-SYSTEM headers. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
