I have an updated patch (see below) inspired by goto fail, in particular, a
recent essay by David Wheeler (see
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/apple-goto-fail.html). The clang compiler would
have caught the goto fail issue if it had been used to analyze the code with
the -Wunreachable-code
I've attached a new diff that fixes that error in the code comments.
From: dwhee...@dwheeler.com
To: dale.vis...@live.com
Subject: Re: Turn on compiler warnings by default for AC_PROG_CC,
AC_PROG_CXX AC_PROG_FC
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:23:33 -0400
CC: nbow...@elliptictech.com;
Excellent! I think this should go in.
On April 14, 2014 11:55:25 AM EDT, Dale Visser dale.vis...@live.com wrote:
I've attached a new diff that fixes that error in the code comments.
From: dwhee...@dwheeler.com
To: dale.vis...@live.com
Subject: Re: Turn on compiler warnings by default for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2014 04:19 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
Can you explain exactly which flags are (attempted to be) enabled by default?
I see the following in
a comment in the patch: For the GNU compiler it will be -Wall (and
-ansi -pedantic) If that comment is
Nick:
On 04/10/2014 04:19 PM, you wrote:
Can you explain exactly which flags are (attempted to be) enabled by
default? I see the following in
a comment in the patch: For the GNU compiler it will be -Wall (and
-ansi -pedantic) If that comment is correct... this means that the
script will by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick:
On 04/10/2014 04:19 PM, you wrote:
Can you explain exactly which flags are (attempted to be) enabled by default?
I see the following in
a comment in the patch: For the GNU compiler it will be -Wall (and
-ansi -pedantic) If that comment
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:33:01 -0400, Dale Visser dale.vis...@live.com wrote:
You found a mistake in the code comments that were brought over with
this code from Autoconf Archive.
Okay, hope you'll fix that!
To answer your specific question about GCC, only '-Wall' gets
used to compile.
Good,
This has been on my back burner for a while, but I have finally taken the time
to address some concerns raised earlier. To remind you all, these changes are
about turning on a pragmatic set of compiler warning flags for C, C++ and
Fortran projects by default. The changes now include an easy
Hello,
On 2014-04-10 13:41 -0400, Dale Visser wrote:
This has been on my back burner for a while, but I have finally taken the
time to address some concerns raised earlier. To remind you all, these
changes are about turning on a pragmatic set of compiler warning flags for C,
C++ and
I said:
The AC_APPEND_FLAG doesn't provide the functionality I would want for
portability,
because it doesn't really check if the flag works (and it doesn't report
the checking either)
Anyway, I think you're on the right path, just need some tweaks before it's
ready.
On Mon,
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:01:57 -0500, Dale Visser dale.vis...@gmail.com wrote:
I've created a new patch (attached) incorporating your suggestions. See my
comments inline below.
Excellent!
Done, with the wording you suggested. On my system (gcc version is 4.8.1), I
tested the gcc oddity you
On 02/10/2014 03:28 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
checking if -Wno-such-option can be added to CFLAGS... yes
...
That looks perfect, it's certainly clear what's going on.
I'm a little annoyed by the second warning, though, the one that says:
cc1: warning: unrecognized command line
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:53:05 -0500, Dale Visser dale.vis...@gmail.com wrote:
One advantage of AC_FLAGS_WARN_ALL is that it has been written to work not
only with gcc, but also with other compilers, such as clang and icc.
I think that's an awesome part of this approach.
Also, it is possible to
On 2014-01-17 4:02 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
Zack Weinberg said:
For GCC I would be quite hesitant to turn anything on beyond -Wall
without explicit buy-in from the project, but I like the idea of
enabling -Wall by default.
I pretty sure that's what Dale Visser's patch does. It says: +
Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com writes:
-ansi, however, should not be in there at all; it doesn't just turn on
strict conformance mode, it turns on strict *C89* conformance mode,
which is often wrong for new code. And even nowadays, strict
conformance mode in general tends to break system
I said:
It appears to me that the
code is just trying to see if -pedantic *WORKS*, and if it does,
then using that as evidence that -Wall would work.
Zack Weinberg said:
Oh, is that what -pedantic % -Wall means? I had the impression it was
going to try each one in isolation and include
Paul:
I've looked over gl_MANYWARN_ALL_GCC now (
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/manywarnings.m4),
and like how it has been structured.
One advantage of AC_FLAGS_WARN_ALL is that it has been written to work not
only with gcc, but also with other compilers, such
For GCC I would be quite hesitant to turn anything on beyond -Wall without
explicit buy-in from the project, but I like the idea of enabling -Wall by
default.
The inspiration for this comes from an earlier discussion on the 'autoconf'
list: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2013-10/msg00025.html
The basic idea is to overall enhance the security of code built using
autoconf, by turning on compiler warnings that the developers wouldn't
otherwise
I don't know, those warnings look pretty pedantic.
In projects I help maintain, we've found the gnulib
manywarnings module to be more useful.
20 matches
Mail list logo
