This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Rename -W to -Wextra ?

From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at NUXI dot com>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
Cc: phil at jaj dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:08:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Rename -W to -Wextra ?
Organization: The NUXI BSD group
References: <20020603073501.A9892@disaster.basement.lan> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0206031312070.30324-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk> <200206031413.KAA10829@caip.rutgers.edu>
Reply-to: obrien at NUXI dot com

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 10:13:46AM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Adding -Wextra as an alias for -W is fine, but IMHO removing -W is
> not.  Why invalidate people's Makefiles and configure scripts that
> have worked for a decade?  For the same reason, we should not issue a
> "deprecated" warning when using -W.

I'd *LOVE* to see a GNU autoconf script that is 10 years old that still
works with GCC 3.1.

Our experiences with GCC 3.1 in FreeBSD on 8000 3rd party apps shows just
how much 10 year old code will not compile with GCC.  Don't _even_
mention 10 year old C++ code -- don't even try.  In fact all the new
bitching about: changing search order for system directory "/usr/include"
breaks *TONS* of GNU autoconf scripts that add -I/usr/include willy
nilly.

I really don't think there is any need to worry about the thing you are
worrying about.

References:
- Re: Rename -W to -Wextra ?
  - From: Phil Edwards
- Re: Rename -W to -Wextra ?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Rename -W to -Wextra ?
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi

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