Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:51:39PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 08:23:06PM +0800, Ariff Abdullah wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:58:52 +0000 (GMT)
>>Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Probably a combination of -Wall and -Werror, which generally
>>> generates a warning along the following lines:
>>>
>>> warning: suggest parentheses around comparison in operand of &
>>>
>>That means, warnings caused by excessive inlining while compiling
>>maestro.c should also break the build if WARNS=1, right? Has anybody
>>encounter and getting annoyed by this?
>
>No, function inlining doesn't change the semantics of expressions.
I misread Ariff's question. Please disregard.
Ok.
So -Wall and -Werror doesn' result in issuing an error for each warning but
instead in an error for warnings, which are issued because the code in
question may change the semantic depending on the change which needs to be
done to get rid of the warning?
Whether GCC prints 'warning:' or 'error:' is not changed by -Werror.
But the behavior of gcc is changed by -Werror: gcc aborts instead of
generating an object file.
I'm not sure understand the second part of your question. The warning
is issued because a & b == c is parsed as a & (b == c).
The second part was how gcc behaves, I think it behaves like:
if -Werror && any_warning_generated:
bail_out
Your answer to the (misread) message from Ariff suggested:
if -Werror && warning_because_of_possible_semantic_change:
bail_out
Since you misread the message, no need to answer (except I'm wrong).
Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Until Eve arrived, this was a man's world.
-- Richard Amour
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
