Re: Building libstdc++-v3 and -WError

[brent verner <brent at rcfile dot org>]

On 06 Sep 2000 at 17:59 (-0700), Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
| > I appreciate the concern of having the library free of any warnings,
| > but isn't -WError a little too hard...
| 
| Hmm. I understand this problem now (ie, wctype.h + -O2 == bad) 
| 
| I've temporarily hacked in some nasty bits for this.
| 
| We've had a bunch of complaints about this. I dunno. The thought of adding an 
| --enable-werror flag is a bit much, and adding it to debug_flags is 
| really not the intention of that flag. Perhaps interested parties 
| should just edit the src/Makefile.am for WERROR? Thoughts?

I'm definitely affected by the -Werror problem, but I've gotten in
the habit of removing the @WERRROR@ from the Makefile.am for unattended
builds. I think the -Werror _is_ a good idea (in general), but disabling
it might lower the barrier of entry for new users. Perhaps the (real)
developers could just enable the -Werror (periodically?) to make sure
no serious warnings are being emitted.

  brent


btw, I experienced a few days of setback on the cshadow work (system
ugrade, after which I could _not_ get a working g++ built, so I went
on the whole tool-chain upgrade warpath... I must have just had some
seriously bad timing, because this evenings build just bootstrapped
and tested good :) Also, could you comment on the suspected bug in
g++(, which I cc'd to this list)? -- as I _think_ this is keeping
me from having _all_ c headers play nicely. thanks.

-- 
Damon Brent Verner                        o      _     _         _
Cracker JackŪ Surprise Certified  _o     /\_   _ \\o  (_)\__/o  (_)
brent@rcfile.org                _< \_   _>(_) (_)/<_    \_| \   _|/' \/
brent@linux1.org               (_)>(_) (_)        (_)   (_)    (_)'  _\o_