On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > Dan Pascu wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Dan Pascu wrote: > >> So I'm not sure if this feature will outweight its side effects. > > > > As a note, if the quiet compilation would be able to display the > > command used to compile a file when there is an error compiling it, > > then it would probably outweight the issue I mentioned before. > > Thanks for your comments. I agree with them and I still have to study > what happens when something miscompiles. > > But the idea really is that this option would be used by a developer, > which can handle the errors. But if he/she knows that everything > compiles cleanly at some point, he/she can switch off the verbose > messages and pay more attention to what _changes_ after hacking > something.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I never felt any need to disable the verbose compilation. Maybe also because the editor I use is able to capture the compile errors and allows me to jump between them (with F11 and F12), so I guess I never payed much attention to the compilation output other than to spot the errors, which I got easily anyway. > > When I am compiling wmaker it is a pain to see gcc warnings, and this > issue goes away by enabling a quiet compilation because they really > stand out that way. Hiding warnings this way is a bad idea. It's better to see them and fix them, because they may mean potential problems in your code. > I mean, I compile the linux kernel and git itself _very_ frequently > to help catching up regressions etc. And those two projects have > a _very_ clean compilation, and somehow I became used to it and > wanted something similar with wmaker. But maybe that is just me :-) -- Dan -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
