> the tradition of c is that old programs may
> no longer compile without options.
that's not the tradition i've observed.
> i think you could make that argument, but
> it's probably not worth changing now.
> a large part of the problem is that most
> of those flags (not w) turn on errors, not
> warnings, so making them the default
> would reject once-valid c programs.
>
> this is one thing that we tried to get right
> i hadn't thought about it before. why aren't FVTw on by default?
> is this a historical accident?
i think you could make that argument, but
it's probably not worth changing now.
a large part of the problem is that most
of those flags (not w) turn on errors, not
warnings, so making them the defa
On Tue Dec 22 00:20:35 EST 2009, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > i hadn't thought about it before. why aren't FVTw on by default?
> > is this a historical accident?
>
> They are, in /sys/src/mkfile.proto. Is that really such a burden?
on the other hand, it is exactly code compiled by hand that
> i hadn't thought about it before. why aren't FVTw on by default?
> is this a historical accident?
They are, in /sys/src/mkfile.proto. Is that really such a burden?
++L
i got this response when pointing out the standard flags to
?c:
> Thanks! It is crazy, I think, that folks should have to work
> so hard to get help from the compiler. It should be an option
> to turn those helpful features off, especially since turning
> them off only makes sense for non-intera
