On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:29:14AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/14/2013 01:58 AM, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > Hi, > > > > gcc handling of -Wno-xxxx flags is different from its handling of -Wxxxx > > flags as described in > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/Warning-Options.html#Warning-Options > > : > > > > "When an unrecognized warning option is requested (e.g., > > -Wunknown-warning), GCC emits a diagnostic stating that the option is not > > recognized. However, if the -Wno- form is used, the behavior is slightly > > different: no diagnostic is produced for -Wno-unknown-warning unless other > > diagnostics are being produced." > > > > This means that with gcc, gl_WARN_ADD([-Wno-unknown-warning]) will always > > succeed, leading to issues like > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-April/msg00000.html > > > > I guess that when gl_WARN_ADD is used with -Wno-unknown-warning, it should > > test as well the corresponding -Wunknown-warning flag, though I don't know > > how well this will work with non-gcc compilers. > > Yes, this has been brought up before
Ah, that's cool then, I was not sure this was a known issue, so just wanted to report it. Thanks! Christophe
pgplFoxKzaMs0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
