On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:46:07 +0100, Nick wrote: >On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:54:44 -0700 >Jon Strait <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > But because we update Scintilla regularly we try to push >> > modifications upstream; can you try to get the Scintilla changes >> > into the standard Scintilla release please? >> >> I sent a patch for Scintilla to the project lead. > >OK, thanks, did he say he'll commit it then? > >> Some extra warnings >> were thrown on my code when building for Scintilla, which were quite >> nice to have, and I don't remember seeing them when I built for >> Geany. > >Not sure how to enable warnings by default for gcc/g++ in a portable >way, but I'm no autotools guru.
It's not really about autotools but more about which compiler to use. Not everyone is using gcc/g++ and other compilers don't necessarily understand the same command line options as gcc/g++ (besides the pseudo-standard options like -c, -o and -g). IIRC Scintilla's Makefile is assuming g++ is available which we don't do in Geany. Using appropriate compiler flags to trigger warnings is in the responsibility of the developer, I think. That is, if you personally want more warnings, define them using the global CFLAGS environment variable for example. At least this is what I do and I'm happy with this concept and it doesn't break the build for users with other compilers. Last but not least with regards to compiling Scintilla in Geany, we just *use* Scintilla here, so we don't care so much about warnings. We don't actively develop Scintilla except for a few patches here and there. In contrary, for the Geany code itself we (i.e. Nick and me) use a good set of specific gcc options to trigger various warnings. Regards, Enrico -- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
pgpw42qg2PSkN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
