Erik Hofman wrote:
> It's quite simple, SGI has the zero warning compiling philosophy; No
> build will be shipped if it generates a warning. It has gained them
> the reputation of being one of the most stable UNIX variants
> available.

Now I'm even more confused.  What warning are you talking about?  The
one that the SGI compiler does not generate for "//" comments?  The
one that gcc does not generate for inline variable declarations?  The
one that the MSVC compiler generates for empty array members in a
struct?

If you want me to fix a warning condition in Nasal, I'm happy to.
Just point me to where.  If you want the GCC people to add a warning,
please be more specific (and maybe consider posting to a more
appropriate forum).  If you actually think the SGI compiler catches
all possible errors with its magical warning-fu, then I have a bridge
to sell you. :)

Seriously, Erik.  Think more about the problem.  There are no easy
answers here; I think you've misunderstood* something.

* Example: You seem to think that an inline declaration is a bad
  thing, and worth warning about.  But you seem to be fine with
  comments that begin with "//", a non-C89 feature about which the SGI
  compiler is silent.  Both are useful features, part of C99, and
  worth supporting, so why does your opinion of the two differ?  My
  guess is it's only because your favorite compiler writers toss a
  warning for one and not the other. :)

Basically: please be constructive.  Singing about SGI's wonderful Unix
or flaming GCC for failing to warn about correct (!) code isn't
improving Nasal or FlightGear.

Andy

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to