Stephen Warren wrote: > The problem is, that just generates a warning, which can easily be missed > unless one really pays attention to build logs. > > I was thinking of an option to completely remove the concept of "inline" > declarations from gcc's knowledge of syntax, thus forcing an error. > > It looks like the combination of "-ansi -pedantic" does that. However, > enabling -pedantic might cause lots of build failures due to gcc being > extremely picky... Unfortunately, I don't see any other option that seems > to do this.
-pedantic still just makes them warnings. Perhaps you mean -pedantic-errors. > I guess alternatively -Werror might do the trick, together with the -W you > mentioned. That also has some potential for other negative fallout though. I'm fine with that. I don't like -Werror, but -pedantic-errors is fine. I'll update it. -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk'; Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it; Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job; Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient; Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
