Eric Blake wrote: > Another thing to consider. Why are we even bothering with a link warning, > which only works for ELF, when gcc provides a more generic solution that will > also work for Cygwin and other non-ELF platforms? ... > In other words, maybe I should go with option: > 4. Redefine GL_LINK_WARNING to instead be a way to apply __attribute__ > ((__warning__)) as a function attribute when gcc supports it (and probably > rename the module/macro from link-warning/GL_LINK_WARNING to usage- > warning/GL_USAGE_WARNING, since it would now be a compiler rather than a > linker > warning), and adjust all GNULIB_POSIXCHECK call points to use the new > semantics.
Good idea!
