Sorry, forgot to add the patch.
Index: osprey/driver/OPTIONS
===================================================================
--- osprey/driver/OPTIONS (revision 3334)
+++ osprey/driver/OPTIONS (working copy)
@@ -1470,6 +1470,10 @@
"Do not warn about suspicious declarations of main"
-Wmissing-braces ; Cc f self
"Warn about possibly missing braces around initialisers"
+-Wextra ; Cc f self
+ "Warn about some extra warning flags that are not enabled by -Wall"
+-Wno-extra ; Cc f self
+ "Do not warn about some extra warning flags that are not enabled by
-Wall"
-Wno-missing-braces ; Cc f self
"Do not warn about possibly missing braces around initialisers"
-Wmissing-declarations ; Cc f self
@@ -1944,6 +1948,8 @@
"File tells Fortran compiler how to transform ids into linker
symbols"
-undef ; Cc,as,CPP CPP self
""
+-Wmissing-include-dirs ; Cc,as,CPP CPP self
+ "No such file or directory"
%%% Code Generation Options
-fcall-saved-%s ; Cc NONE ""
""
Thanks,
zhuqing
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM, 朱庆 <zqing1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with steve, -Wno-extra option should be added.
> Please continue with the review.
>
> Thanks,
> zhuqing
>
> 2010/9/2 Steve Ellcey <s...@cup.hp.com>
>
> On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 13:30 -0700, Jian-Xin Lai wrote:
>>
>> > I can not find any document about -Wno-extra though gcc accept it. It
>> > looks like meaningless.
>> > Please remove the -Wno-extra and modify the messages.
>>
>> If GCC accepts -Wno-extra shouldn't we accept -Wno-extra? I think that,
>> in general, GCC doesn't document the -Wno-* or -fno-* negative form of
>> flags.
>>
>> Steve Ellcey
>> s...@cup.hp.com
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Open64-devel mailing list
Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
