Hi Federico,
On 01/20/14 12:13 PM, Federico Schwindt wrote:
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... ?
Hm, your question seems to contain the answer ;)
If the compiler does not support -Wno-missing-field-initializers, we can't use
-Wno-missing-field-initializers, so we have to use -Wno-extra
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?
Notice that gcc is invoked with -c for the first and -o for the second case.
It's no surprise to me that the second test only fails on an exotic OS (read:
OpenSolaris) :P
Cheers, Nils
_______________________________________________
varnish-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
