From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KbHwz-0007Ep-Ar for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:53 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbHww-0007Ek-NI for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:50 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbHwu-0007EY-D8 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:49 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36846 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KbHwu-0007EV-5M for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:48 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:14543) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KbHwt-000544-Tb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:48 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO relay.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.81]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2008 12:45:56 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by relay.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916B54F1869 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:44:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <1220527014.4167.28.camel@fz.local> References: <1220527014.4167.28.camel@fz.local> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:44:45 -0400 Message-Id: <1220546685.16992.31.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:44:51 -0000 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