At 04:39 PM 12/31/2001 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 03:21:38PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 09:50:08AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > I committed a patch yesterday that forces -Wall for gcc builds. If
> that's
> > > not cranky enough, give me a list of more gcc switches and I'll add 'em
> > > into the list.
>
> > I'd be very tempted to throw -Werror on there as well, just to force
> > the issue a little.
>
>This is *not* a good idea. The problem is that not all warnings are your own
>fault :) I have seen a lot of examples where a missing prototype or
>redefinition in OS headers results in a compile-time warning, and -Werror
>would definately be the wrong thing then. You should use -Werror only if
>you're afraid of not seeing stderr messages from gcc, or want gcc to stop
>compiling at the first error to avoid the usual cascade of weird, seemingly
>incorrect errors. :)
We'll burn those bridges when we get to them. Right now I want to clean up
all the errors our code throws because of these.
>-Wall good, -Werror bad. -pedantic could clash with any gcc-specific code
>such as the calculated-goto.
-pedantic can go in that case, but since we're not there quite yet it's OK.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
