This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I noticed that in one of my runs I got some warnings - which I didn't get in other. Investigating this, I noticed that we use WARN_FLAGS with warnings - but do not use those flags everywhere. My generated src/Makefile has: CXXCOMPILE = $(CXX) $(DEFS) $(DEFAULT_INCLUDES) $(INCLUDES) \ $(AM_CPPFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(AM_CXXFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) WARN_FLAGS = -Wall -Wextra -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual WARN_CXXFLAGS = \ $(WARN_FLAGS) $(WERROR) -fdiagnostics-show-location=once AM_CXXFLAGS = \ -fno-implicit-templates \ $(WARN_CXXFLAGS) \ $(OPTIMIZE_CXXFLAGS) \ $(CONFIG_CXXFLAGS) LTCXXCOMPILE = $(LIBTOOL) --tag CXX --mode=compile $(CXX) $(INCLUDES) \ $(AM_CPPFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS) $(AM_CXXFLAGS) .cc.o: $(CXXCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $< .cc.lo: $(LTCXXCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $< So, we only use the WARNFLAGS for lo to cc - but not for normal object files, e.g. for testsuite_abi. What's the best way to fix? I think we should use the same warnings for both .o and .lo files, shouldn't we? Andreas P.S. the warnings are: ../../../../libstdc++-v3/testsuite/testsuite_abi.cc: In function âsymbol& get_symbol(const std::string&, const symbols&)â: ../../../../libstdc++-v3/testsuite/testsuite_abi.cc:268: warning: control reaches end of non-void function -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 NÃrnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |