On 8/13/11 2:23 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I'd start with -O2 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and something like
> this subset of -Wall:
>
>-Warray-bounds
>-Wchar-subscripts
>-Wsequence-point
gcc now has:
-Werror=
Make the specified warning into an error. The specifier for a
war
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Whether to invest in enabling -Werror for all packages in a mass rebuild
>> however is another question.
>
> Pardon, but this is not a question, this is beyond reason and foolish.
>
>> There will be many build failures, and
>> s
On 08/13/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Whether to invest in enabling -Werror for all packages in a mass rebuild
> however is another question.
Pardon, but this is not a question, this is beyond reason and foolish.
> There will be many build failures, and
> some will be unwarranted.
Exact
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:45:15 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If a package fails to build in a mass rebuild because -Werror was enabled
>> then that's additional work for several people to fix something that may not
>> have ever actually been broken.
>
> 99% of warnings will
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 11:16 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> So I think it makes sense to patch samba's wscript to also support
> --disable-silent-rules for now.
Hi,
yup, I made it that way, for now.
> It may make sense to also have an automake_compat.py in upstream waf
> which does somethin
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> I'll work on a patch - I guess the RPM approach is more overrides
> rather than detecting things, so I'll go with adding an option.
Actually looking at this more, while waf does support the GNU autoconf
options by loading gnu_dirs.py (and
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Milan Crha wrote:
>
> I would like you to give me an option to not use --disable-silent-rules,
> because it breaks waf build.
Ugh; pretty lame that waf chose to replicate all of the standard
autoconf flags as well as some automake ones
(--disable-dependency-tracki
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 11:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Looks fine to me. The only reason I have to dislike it is the
> > temptation for people to inspect build logs as a proof of what flags a
> > package was built with (since the only sane thing is to store that in
> > the binary itself, which the
Hi Jan,
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
>> the goal being that they see warnings more easily.
>
> You should make -Werror default instead, by compiling packages without -Werror
> various bugs creep in which would be
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:45:15 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If a package fails to build in a mass rebuild because -Werror was enabled
> then that's additional work for several people to fix something that may not
> have ever actually been broken.
99% of warnings will not lead to user visible bugs
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 19:19 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > If you're volunteering to fix and/or paper over all the spurious
> > warnings gcc and glibc introduce with every phase of the moon, then
> > sure.
>
> Yes, I do it for my componen
On 08/09/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> If you're volunteering to fix and/or paper over all the spurious
>> warnings gcc and glibc introduce with every phase of the moon, then
>> sure.
>
> Yes, I do it for my component, GDB has -Wer
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 07:34:48PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:16:54 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's a development-only
> > option. You have no idea what gcc will decide is a warning in future, so
> > it's effectively a "Please break my build in six months" toggle
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:39:55 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Please reread the whole message; this passage only reasons why various
> UPSTREAMS have chosen to use silent rules. The patch is all about
> globally enabling the verbose mode, exactly the same you were proposing
> in the kernel ticket.
OK,
On 08/09/2011 07:50 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
>> Various projects have been adding AM_SILENT_RULES from Automake to
>> their Makefiles for "developer convenience"; the goal being that they
>> see warnings more easily.
>
> It is inconvenien
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:16:54 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Never, ever ship software with -Werror enabled.
I agree - for source distribution. Yes, GDB releases have -Werror turned off.
> It's a development-only
> option. You have no idea what gcc will decide is a warning in future, so
> it'
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote:
> If you're volunteering to fix and/or paper over all the spurious
> warnings gcc and glibc introduce with every phase of the moon, then
> sure.
Yes, I do it for my component, GDB has -Werror default in development phases
upstream. It cleans
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 06:56:21PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
> > the goal being that they see warnings more easily.
>
> You should make -Werror default instead, by compiling packages without -Werror
> various bugs creep in which would b
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 18:56 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
> > the goal being that they see warnings more easily.
>
> You should make -Werror default instead, by compiling packages without -Werror
> various bugs creep in which would be much
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
> the goal being that they see warnings more easily.
You should make -Werror default instead, by compiling packages without -Werror
various bugs creep in which would be much easier fixed before the compilation.
Regards,
Jan
--
devel maili
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:44:31 +0200, Colin Walters wrote:
> Various projects have been adding AM_SILENT_RULES from Automake to
> their Makefiles for "developer convenience"; the goal being that they
> see warnings more easily.
It is inconvenient as one can no longer easily reproduce the compilation
Tom Lane writes:
> What happens in packages using a (possibly old) autoconf script that
> doesn't recognize --disable-silent-rules?
Autoconf-generated configure scripts generally ignore unknown --enable
and --with options (newer versions give a warning).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@red
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What happens in packages using a (possibly old) autoconf script that
> doesn't recognize --disable-silent-rules?
Autoconf convention is to ignore unknown rules. And indeed, all that
results is a warning:
configure: WARNING: unrecognized option
Adam Jackson writes:
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 10:44 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> See attached.
> Looks fine to me. The only reason I have to dislike it is the
> temptation for people to inspect build logs as a proof of what flags a
> package was built with (since the only sane thing is to store
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 10:44 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> See attached.
Looks fine to me. The only reason I have to dislike it is the
temptation for people to inspect build logs as a proof of what flags a
package was built with (since the only sane thing is to store that in
the binary itself, whi
See attached.
From d24d382c325c8794c05bcb56b3820b15e4a67e55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Walters
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:42:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] macros: Globally add --disable-silent-rules to configure
Various projects have been adding AM_SILENT_RULES from Automake to
their
26 matches
Mail list logo
