On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, David A. Wheeler wrote:
I think it is NOT a good idea for a developer to see warning
messages in his builds, but then suppress them for end-user builds.
Better to suppress them with good reason for all builds, if they are
not relevant! Or if not, at least document why
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by default
I don't think anybody's advocating that. It'd be an option. The
typical practice is for packages to have a build-time option like
'./configure --enable-gcc-warnings' which some developers use
On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Paul Eggert wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by default
I don't think anybody's advocating that. It'd be an option. The typical
practice is for packages to have a build-time option like './configure
--enable
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by default
Paul Eggert
> I don't think anybody's advocating that. It'd be an option.
I am *NOT* advocating engaging a *high* warning level by default.
I *AM* advocating a *basic* warning level by defau
On 03/06/2014 12:38 PM, David A. Wheeler wrote:
I*AM* advocating a*basic* warning level by default.
I interpret that on gcc to be "-Wall" or some variant.
-Wall generates too many false positives in practice. Perhaps some
variant would be better, but we'd have to see the details.
I doubt wh
