Sorry if I was unclear, I consider a 'link' or a 'compile' to be "clean" when
there are no errors or warnings reported. Back in the day this was an
indication that the system and build environment were in sync with what you
were trying to do. So if I typed
ddp% g++ -c foo.cc
ddp% ld -o foo foo.o
That was considered a "clean compile and link." More often than not in the
open source world I see warnings telling me that my code is either insecure,
not portable, non-standard, or all of the above, and this is with code that I
did not write, but simply tried to recompile. (lots of that sort of chatter
when you're building KDE in ports for example)
It offends my sense of style but as most people cheerfully point out, "its
On Thursday 04 March 2004 17:08, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:40:16PM -0800, Charles McManis wrote:
> > On the compilation front. It is impossible to get a clean link with the
> > gcc 2.95 toolchain. You'll get warnings about unsafe function calls. This
> > does not happen with the gcc 3.3 toolchain as far as I can tell.
> That's not a toolchain issue, and it doesnt affect the "cleanliness"
> of the binary.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"