[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A88064BC-9942-4CF6-A342-951787C5470D@shiz.me>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:57:23 +0200
From: Shiz <hi@...z.me>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: More on warning cleanup
> On 28 May 2015, at 07:08, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> Since compilers differ in what warnings they include in -Wall, I'd
> like to remove -Wall (followed by a bunch of -Wno-*) from musl's
> --enable-warnings and instead individually turn on the warnings we
> want.
Sounds like a good idea, if only for consistency between compilers.
> One other issue to consider is how to get rid of enabled-by-default
> warnings we don't want. On GCC they're impossible to turn off
> individually, but unobtrusive; only -w can turn them off, but -w is
> permanent and overrides all later -W options. On cparser, a lot of
> crap is turned on by default, but -w turns it off and is then
> overridable by subsequent -W options. Not sure about clang.
clang mimics this behaviour, for what it’s worth. The only thing that
will enable warnings again is -pedantic-errors, which is rather unfortunate.
I presume GCC behaves the same way.
-S
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
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.
