Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is jogging my memory some. Jarkko passed on his "gcc switch list
> from hell" to me a while back--let me dig it out and add them in.
> This is *not* going to be pretty for the next few days...
Here are some notes on what I've managed to live with:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
[ Me: Don't use -Werror! ]
> 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.
Of course, as long as it appears in the development code, it's fine. It's
no
At 12:06 PM 12/31/2001 -0800, Jason Diamond wrote:
>Attached is a small patch to Configure.pl that "touches" platform.h and
>platform.c so that Configure.pl isn't run a second time when you do a make.
>This doesn't fix Win32's build problems but it makes it less annoying trying
>to figure out the
.
- Original Message -
From: "Lee Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 12:51 AM
Subject: recent win32 build errors
> hello!
>
> after seeing a rash of win32 build problems, i decided to look into what
> is going on
At 06:23 PM 12/31/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>Patch appended, new gcc test program attached.
>Hopefully this is a the right style of doing things.
It's good enough for now. I'm testing it now--when it's done I'll commit this.
Dan
-
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Yes, please. This'll catch the systems based on GCC (like the Mac OS X
> compiler) that don't look like that in Config.pm
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:39:54AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I've just made a few minor changes
At 04:39 PM 12/31/2001 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 03:21:38PM +, 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
At 04:10 PM 12/31/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Yes, please. This'll catch the systems based on GCC (like the Mac OS X
> > compiler) that don't look like that in Config.pm
>
>I was just about to complain that my perl was built wi
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Yes, please. This'll catch the systems based on GCC (like the Mac OS X
> compiler) that don't look like that in Config.pm
I was just about to complain that my perl was built with cc, which is
a symlink to gcc.
--
Resist the urge t
At 03:55 PM 12/31/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>Shall I submit a patch that makes Configure.pl check the the C compiler works
>and if it's gcc (by compiling a test program that looks for gcc's version
>macros, rather than trying to pass the output of ${cc} --version)
>
>And the if it's gcc in
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 10:02:19AM -0500, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> At 13:36 on 12/31/2001 GMT, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are, of course, correct. gcc is a lot laxer than many other compilers,
> > so we want to get away with as little as possible. -Wall should be default
> > fo
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 03:21:38PM +, 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 lis
At 03:21 PM 12/31/2001 +, 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 ve
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 for
At 01:36 PM 12/31/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:51:32PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Could I suggest that for gcc we turn on maximal bitchiness, /please/
> > -Wall, -W and everything even bitchier still that we can get away with.
>
>You are, of course, correct. gc
At 13:36 on 12/31/2001 GMT, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are, of course, correct. gcc is a lot laxer than many other compilers,
> so we want to get away with as little as possible. -Wall should be default
> for gcc. (And please remember that not every compiler supports -Wall, so
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 12:51:32PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Could I suggest that for gcc we turn on maximal bitchiness, /please/
> -Wall, -W and everything even bitchier still that we can get away with.
You are, of course, correct. gcc is a lot laxer than many other compilers,
so we want to
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 03:51:37AM -0500, Lee Berger wrote:
> that brings me to the next problem: string.c. there are a slew of
> compile errors in this file, and it all is based on pointer math on void
> pointers. for example, STRING has a void* bufstart member, and various
> functions (like s
hello!
after seeing a rash of win32 build problems, i decided to look into what
is going on. one problem i noticed in the emails was Configure.pl was
being run twice. once by the user (as expected), and once by nmake. the
reason is quiet cute:
when Configure.pl is run, it copies platforms/win
19 matches
Mail list logo
