[RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls

[RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls

[Felix Zielcke]

With my configure.ac autoconf[0] topic I just got the idea to add
`-Wall' option to `autoconf' in `autogen.sh'

We're using -Wall for gcc so why not for autoconf and autoheader too?

Then once in a while someone will hopefully notice that something might
need a change and will look into it.


[0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2008-09/msg00090.html


-- 
Felix Zielcke

Re: [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls

[Pavel Roskin]

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 13:16 +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> With my configure.ac autoconf[0] topic I just got the idea to add
> `-Wall' option to `autoconf' in `autogen.sh'
> 
> We're using -Wall for gcc so why not for autoconf and autoheader too?
> 
> Then once in a while someone will hopefully notice that something might
> need a change and will look into it.

Fine, but only if we decide to fix the existing warnings.  I'm not sure
it's worth the trouble.  Just because a macro is considered obsolete,
it's not necessarily broken.  End users won't run Autoconf, so they
won't have problems if a newer Autoconf removes an obsolete macro.

Compiler warnings are more likely to indicate a problem with the
compiled code than autoconf warnings.  They can also indicate problems
with different compilers, and users will use different compilers.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin

Re: [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls

[Felix Zielcke]

Am Donnerstag, den 04.09.2008, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Pavel Roskin:
> Fine, but only if we decide to fix the existing warnings.  I'm not sure
> it's worth the trouble.  Just because a macro is considered obsolete,
> it's not necessarily broken.  End users won't run Autoconf, so they
> won't have problems if a newer Autoconf removes an obsolete macro.

All obsolete things should be mostly fixed by running `autoupdate'
For fixing the other kind of warnings I'll need to find out more about
that autoconf stuff.

With -Wall hopefully someone notices that he just introduced a warning
with his change and trys to fix this before commiting.

> Compiler warnings are more likely to indicate a problem with the
> compiled code than autoconf warnings.  They can also indicate problems
> with different compilers, and users will use different compilers.

This would be just more consistent.
But yes for the compiler and so for the code itself this is more
important.


-- 
Felix Zielcke