[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > Paul Eggert wrote: >> Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I could probably do it on >> > this box, but since it's Linux, it would still be with gcc. >> >> Even that would be helpful, since our current buildbot doesn't do the >> particular combination of GCC options you're interested in. > > I would be happy to add a special-options-build to the buildbot to > check for c89 compatibility. I will patch in the c99-to-c89.diff > first of course. What options would be required for this? Is > "-Wdeclaration-after-statement -Werror" sufficient?
Hi Bob, Here's what Paul just added to Makefile.maint. That should do it, as long as you do that build on a relatively modern Linux system: $ grep -C2 ansi Makefile.maint && (cd src && patch -V never --fuzz=0 <c99-to-c89.diff) \ && ./configure --disable-largefile \ CFLAGS='-Werror -ansi -pedantic -Wno-long-long' \ && $(MAKE) -rm -rf $(t) Another one that'd be nice to automate (though not as important, so could be run far less frequently) is the "configure-without-NLS- then-compile-with-Wformat", from the preceding "my-distcheck" rules, in Makefile.maint: && ./configure --disable-nls \ && $(MAKE) CFLAGS='-Werror -Wall -Wformat -Wshadow -Wpointer-arith' \ AM_MAKEFLAGS='$(null_AM_MAKEFLAGS)' \ Its purpose is to ensure that all format strings match the types of their arguments. The only catch is that your tools/headers need to be at some minimum level. I haven't tried running "make distcheck" on anything other than my bleeding-edge system. You wouldn't need to bother with null_AM_MAKEFLAGS. Thanks for doing that!