On Thursday, 2018-03-22 11:17:55 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote: > Quoting Eric Engestrom (2018-03-22 05:08:55) > > On Monday, 2018-03-12 10:16:33 -0700, Dylan Baker wrote: > > > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-03-12 09:09:50) > > > > On 12 March 2018 at 15:01, Eric Engestrom <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > Dylan, was there any reason to have -Werror=missing-prototypes and > > > > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration in C but not C++? > > > > > Both sound to me like something we always want. > > > > > > > > Seems to be copied from the autotools setup. > > > > Reason being, both are not valid for C++. > > > > Although since we probe for them, everything should be fine. The C++ > > > > test will bail out and the flags won't be set during the actual build. > > > > > > Which is why I left them separate, since it avoids having to compile for > > > arguments we know that C++ doesn't support. > > > > Pushed now (cb2ddcefa5196fdfeff7), but to explain, my point was: we want > > those warnings when possible, so we might as well test for them and use > > them if/when support is added in the compilers. > > > > The configure-time cost is very low, and the build-time cost is > > non-existent :) > > > > > It probably doesn't matter either way, > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dylan Baker <[email protected]> > > I didn't notice before, but this breaks compiling basically all of our C++ > code > with clang since it adds -Werror=missing-prototypes, and clang gets very angry > at us.
Ah crap :( Are you pushing a revert, or should I? Question though, why is the code full of missing prototypes? Is that a compiler mistake (false-positives), or is the code really missing a bunch of includes? > > Dylan _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
