On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:38:33PM +0200, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > To be honest, I'm surprised that "-Wall" doesn't create problems for
> > older "cc" implementations. We've had patches for compiling with
> > antique SUNWspro and MIPSpro compilers, and I sort of assumed that those
> > don't handle "-Wall". But maybe they do. Or maybe people doing that just
> > set CFLAGS themselves.
> Well actually I do think people are encouraged to play around with their
> CFLAGS as much as they like. I do add link time optimisation usually.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to give the impression that you should not
tweak CFLAGS. That's what it's there for. I just meant that I do not
recall seeing complaints from people on such compilers, so either it
actually works, or they are savvy enough to tweak CFLAGS without making
a complaint. Or they no longer exist. The patches I'm thinking of were
from 2008, and the compilers and systems were old then.
> However I do have the strong opinion that any serious project should
> compile without any warning/error with the standard compilers of
> the current time. That's why I started an attempt again to have
> -Wno-format-zero-length in there by default. Most of the people (I
> assume so) are using gcc. So it should build fine there without any
Yeah, I'd agree it is a good goal.
> Sure it should build without errors as well on other architectures, so
> I do understand the issue to check if we're really using gcc and can
> omit this flag if using another compiler.
> and here
Thanks, I didn't recall that one.
I still think if we are going to start doing gcc auto-detection in the
Makefile, it is slightly less ugly to just tweak the few callsites to
prevent the warning in the first place. I think gcc is being silly to
warn about, but it is the path of least resistance and maintenance.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html