On 03/11/13 18:45, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:32:18AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: >> --- >> This patch moves the maybe-uninitialized warning in the gcc only section and >> introduces the equivalent sometimes-uninitilized warning in clang only >> section. >> Thoughts? >> Vittorio >> >> --- a/configure >> +++ b/configure >> @@ -3924,7 +3924,6 @@ check_disable_warning -Wno-parentheses >> check_disable_warning -Wno-format-zero-length >> check_disable_warning -Wno-pointer-sign >> -enabled extra_warnings || check_disable_warning -Wno-maybe-uninitialized >> >> @@ -4016,6 +4015,7 @@ elif enabled gcc; then >> check_cflags -Werror=return-type >> check_cflags -Werror=declaration-after-statement >> check_cflags -Werror=vla >> + enabled extra_warnings || check_disable_warning -Wno-maybe-uninitialized >> elif enabled llvm_gcc; then >> check_cflags -mllvm -stack-alignment=16 > > I have this part locally already, but I first want to know what exactly > the issue with clang is.
clang and cparser just take any -Wsomething and prints a message if you do not pass the -Wno-whatever-unknown-warnings to it. >> @@ -4024,6 +4024,7 @@ elif enabled clang; then >> check_cflags -Werror=implicit-function-declaration >> check_cflags -Werror=missing-prototypes >> check_cflags -Werror=return-type >> + enabled extra_warnings || check_disable_warning >> -Wno-sometimes-uninitialized > > Instead, we could add a flags_filter function for clang that maps > between the flags. Should work but by a side effect. lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
