This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- To: zack at codesourcery dot com
- Subject: Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 21:39:38 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
>
> > I thought starting with one file would ease people in slowly. Once we
> > got the whole compiler I would take out the individual rules and put
> > it in the .c.o rule or into GCC_WARN_CFLAGS or something. So whatever
> > extra complexity added would be temporary.
>
> (There are cleaner ways to do the same thing, e.g. look at the hack
> used to avoid -pedantic for the non-C front ends.)
> zw
I suppose you're referring to the following from Makefile.in?
> # This is how we control whether or not the additional warnings are applied.
> .-warn = $(STRICT_WARN)
> GCC_WARN_CFLAGS = $(LOOSE_WARN) $($(@D)-warn)
I can't figure this out, can you please explain it? How does it work?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions