[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150526193611.GH17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:36:11 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] When building, don't use compiler flags which
cause warnings
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:55:19PM +0200, Alex Dowad wrote:
>
>
> On 26/05/15 20:47, Rich Felker wrote:
> >On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 08:36:45PM +0200, Alex Dowad wrote:
> >>This silences some warnings when building with clang.
> >>---
> >>Dear Rich Felker,
> >>
> >>This accomplishes the same thing as the previous patch by "promoting" all
> >>warnings to errors. Look better?
> >No, it has exactly the same problem -- it treats any spurious warnings
> >which the chosen $CC might produce as a failure of the test.
> OK, understood. It doesn't look like there is any way to treat
> ignored options as errors,
> unfortunately.
Which flags are giving the warnings? I see both clang and cparser have
a -Wunknown-warning-option which gives warnings for unknown warning
options. I believe it's on by default, and could be turned off, but
using -Werrror=unknown-warning-option seems like the best thing to do
(so they get rejected). I don't see a way to disable warnings for
other unrecognized options, though.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
