Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 06:53:48PM CET: >> But maybe, just maybe, you don't have a desperate need to do >> "-std=c89 -Werror" :-) > > Guys, if all you're working around is -Werror, then stop right now. > Just eliminate -Werror from $LTCC $LTCFLAGS and be done with it. > The cwrapper machinery, if it needs anything, then become simpler > and less work to maintain, not more.
Err...you're missing the point. We're trying to eliminate warnings under std=c89 and std=c99 (and, for that matter, under "normal" conditions). The way to detect whether we have successfully done so is to use std=c89 + -Werror, and detect the failure. "stripping out" -Werror...kinda makes eliminating warnings in cwrapper a little difficult, Now, I'm okay with just letting cwrapper.test fail if MSVC, or if your mingw-runtime is extremely old. All that means is that your *normal* compilation experience (without /WX, or -Werror) will be a little noisier than you might like (or might even fail, if you insist on using -std=c89 with a mingw-runtime that doesn't fully support c89 compliance). So, we don't have to make cwrapper -Werror clean right away, all at once, under all possible configurations. For instance: of the problems reported by Peter yesterday: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-01/msg00195.html stat: missing decl - update your mingw-runtime; problem goes away P_WAIT: missing def - ditto _setmode: missing decl - ditto _spawnv: missing decl - ditto S_IXUSR: missing def - ditto _chmod: missing decl - ditto _getcwd: missing decl - ditto In fact, it looks to me like ALL of the problems Peter reported were caused by using an 2003-era mingw-runtime package (and these were actual errors, not -Werror warnings turned into errors). Well, ok then: libtool's cwrapper might not work with -std=c89 and a very very old mingw-runtime. Client should either (a) stop telling us -std=c89, or (b) update mingw-runtime. Either way, it's not *our* problem. And, as Roumen Petrov pointed out, the strtod "failure" was a bug in mingw-runtime, now fixed. So, again, no need for us to do anything about it. More in my followup in Akim's "Ping?" thread. -- Chuck
