Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> I don't have a preference on which direction we go, but yes, right now
> we are in an awkward middle ground. We should do one of:
> 1. Drop -Wno-format-zero-length from DEVELOPER_CFLAGS and make sure
> future patches to do not violate it.
> 2. Declare warning("") as OK.
> I still think the warning is silly, but (1) has value in that it
> produces the least surprise and annoyance to various people building
What is most awkward is that "make", with no customization out of
box, suggests to use -Wall in CFLAGS and triggers the misguided
warning, and DEVELOPER_CFLAGS, partly because it adds -Werror to
turn warnings (including this misguided one) into errors, disables
it with -Wno-format-zero-length. As a result:
- Casual builders that follow our suggestion get warnings.
- Developers do not notice their new code may make the "casual
builder" experience worse.
That is totally backwards. That is probably what you meant by "the
least surprise and annoyance"?
I also still think that any_printf_like_function("%s", "") looks
silly. I know that we've already started moving in that direction
and we stopped at a place we do not want to be in, but perhaps it
was a mistake to move in that direction in the first place. I am
tempted to say we should do something like the attached, but that
may not fly well, as I suspect that -Wno-format-zero-length may be a
lot more exotic than the -Wall compiler option. An obvious second
best option would be to drop -Wall from the "everybody" CFLAGS and
move it to DEVELOPER_CFLAGS instead.
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index a379738db2..137c10e257 100644
@@ -391,10 +391,9 @@ GIT-VERSION-FILE: FORCE
# CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are for the users to override from the command line.
-CFLAGS = -g -O2 -Wall
+CFLAGS = -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-format-zero-length
DEVELOPER_CFLAGS = -Werror \
- -Wno-format-zero-length \