Hi, I was looking at your diff I don't understand the -Wno-missing-field-initializers vs -Wno-extra. If the compiler doesn't support the former why add the -Wno-extra instead of just not adding -Wno-missing... ? Why are you disabling -Wextra in that case?
The linker check seems wrong to me. The config.log output for this part is: configure:16930: checking whether C compiler accepts -fstack-protector configure:16949: gcc -std=gnu99 -c -g -O2 -pthread -Wall -Werror -Wno-error=unused-result -fstack-protector conftest.c >&5 configure:16949: $? = 0 configure:16957: result: yes configure:16960: checking whether the linker accepts -fstack-protector configure:16979: gcc -std=gnu99 -o conftest -g -O2 -pthread -Wall -Werror -Wno-error=unused-result -fstack-protector conftest.c >&5 configure:16979: $? = 0 configure:16988: result: yes So both checks are doing the same. Can you share the config.log? f.- On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Nils Goroll <[email protected]> wrote: > d9492da540430103b9dcd6844eb59b508c061d66 effectively breaks builds with >> gcc 3.4. >> > > ... only when developer warnings are enabled. > > Patch attached. > > This also fixes linker issues if the compiler supports -fstack-protector > but not the linker and a "the address of ‘buf’ will never be NULL" on > Solaris / gcc 4.3.3 > > Nils > > _______________________________________________ > varnish-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev >
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
