This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: PATCH to keep Jason from pointing out what a fool I am



  In message <199808302327.QAA11398@smtp.earthlink.net>you write:
  > I don't quite understand this criticism.  I think that what you're
  > saying is:
  > 
  >   For stage 2/3 builds we enable warnings by setting WARN_CFLAGS in 
  >   Makefile.in.  For stage 1 builds, you (Mark) are proposing enabling
  >   warnings in configure.in.  That seems inconsistent.
No.  What I'm saying is -W -Wall appears in two places with your patch
configure.in and Makefile.in.  That is bad from a maintenance standpoint.

For example, we want to disable these warnings for releases so as not
to scare folks.  Now whomever is in charge of releases has to go fix
two places.  And unless they happen to know about the second location
of -W -Wall, they'll likely miss one.

While *I* happen to know there's two locations, we should not assume
that I'm the only one that will ever make a release.  Nor should we
assume that we even know who will make releases out of our tree
(there's nothing that prevents someone from coming along and spinning
a release for their favorite linux distribution out of our main tree).

Also consider the case if we decide that we don't want a particular
warning (like signed/unsigned gunk, or whatever).  Now we have to 
make sure to fix two places.  Doesn't seem like much, but if we can
design something simpler to maintain in the long term, we should.

jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]