[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:18:44 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: More on warning cleanup
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:57:23PM +0200, Shiz wrote:
> > On 28 May 2015, at 07:08, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > Since compilers differ in what warnings they include in -Wall, I'd
> > like to remove -Wall (followed by a bunch of -Wno-*) from musl's
> > --enable-warnings and instead individually turn on the warnings we
> > want.
>
> Sounds like a good idea, if only for consistency between compilers.
>
> > One other issue to consider is how to get rid of enabled-by-default
> > warnings we don't want. On GCC they're impossible to turn off
> > individually, but unobtrusive; only -w can turn them off, but -w is
> > permanent and overrides all later -W options. On cparser, a lot of
> > crap is turned on by default, but -w turns it off and is then
> > overridable by subsequent -W options. Not sure about clang.
>
> clang mimics this behaviour, for what it’s worth. The only thing that
> will enable warnings again is -pedantic-errors, which is rather unfortunate.
> I presume GCC behaves the same way.
I think this is a good argument that cparser should have its own
separate option to reset all on-by-default warnings to off, or that it
should just get rid of them -- users who want warnings should pass
-Wall or specific options. I'll pass a link to this thread their way.
If they don't want to change it there are ugly ways we could test for
the behavior (compile code almost certain to get warnings with
-Werror, then see if -w -Wall -Werror also errors).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
