[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5564D020.1020209@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 21:57:20 +0200
From: Alex Dowad <alexinbeijing@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] When building, don't use compiler flags which
cause warnings
On 26/05/15 21:36, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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.
Hmm. -Werror=unknown-warning-option causes configure to disable
-Wno-unused-but-set-variable.
But it doesn't do anything for other ignored options. It causes problems
when building with
gcc as well.
This isn't a big issue; I'd suggest it's better not to get stuck on it.
Thanks, AD
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.
