| From: Antony Antony <[email protected]> | which flag do you mean? the actual flag seems to be lost? Atleast I can't | find it.
The problem is that the mail was private. But not for any good reason. At my urging, it became public halfway through. Confusing. | There was an earlier discussion | https://lists.libreswan.org/pipermail/swan-dev/2019-May/003226.html | As re-collect you wrote "-Wno-missing-field-initializers" is not a good | idea? That was about mk/docker.mk. As far as I understand that's not involved with our problem (based soley on its filename). I was trying to say that we don't want -Wmissing-field-initializers (in this case). In the split thread, I'm trying to say that we DO want -Wno-missing-field-initializers This is a flag with the opposite meaning. I will note that Tuomo recommended this same flag on the mailing list 2018 November 16. I'm sad that I had to rediscover this flag. Somebody should have checked it into our tree back then. | It is in docker-targets.mk, which is used by travis testing make scripts. | I think, I added it to compile on CentOS6 and I didn't really understand | what I am doing:) However, CentOS is broken [1] The flag -Wmissing-field-initializers can only cause failures. It won't fix failures. That would be good if the missing initializer were a mistake. But we intentionally write code with missing initializers. (I will admit that, in some cases, missing initializers are a bug.) -Wno-missing-field-initializers can only suppress failures, it won't cause failures. | NOTE: | We have travis that compile #master on various distributions. Good! | The scripts and hooks to compile on various distributions, on your own | server are in the master. | I guess a better writeup about this would be nicer! Currently it is hidden | in docker test suite documentation, only semi automized. Better documentation is always a Good Idea. Then comes convincing people to read it. | I am curious about initializer issue because it has been taking too much | time from me. My guess is other people on the list are also confused about | it. May be one alternative is we decie not to support CentOS6? This is a solved problem since last November. Too bad we didn't adopt the solution. | PS: googling about -Wno-missing-field-initializers pointed me to 1998 | references, see the links in the second message on this thread. | https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1538943/why-is-the-compiler-throwing-this-warning-missing-initializer-isnt-the-stru Yeah. I included that link in the pointlessly private part of this thread. | Paul: the initializer issue is not a one line change. Once you fix the one | you noticed, more warnings like that will show up. That's what I guessed. But I didn't know that I had tools with which to test for it and assumed those with the problem would do the legwork. | [1] | https://travis-ci.org/antonyantony/libreswan/builds/546142308 | /home/build/libreswan/lib/libswan/addr_lookup.c:67:6: error: implicit declaration of function 'printf' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] | printf("found peer %s to interface %s\n", Interesting. 1) this probably deserves its own thread. It may not be noticed at the bottom of an unrelated message. 2) I just did git pull make clean make base and did not observe this. Perhaps it is fixed? _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
