* [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls
@ 2008-09-04 11:16 Felix Zielcke
2008-09-04 16:44 ` Pavel Roskin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Felix Zielcke @ 2008-09-04 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls
2008-09-04 11:16 [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls Felix Zielcke
@ 2008-09-04 16:44 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-09-04 17:40 ` Felix Zielcke
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Roskin @ 2008-09-04 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls
2008-09-04 16:44 ` Pavel Roskin
@ 2008-09-04 17:40 ` Felix Zielcke
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Felix Zielcke @ 2008-09-04 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-04 17:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-04 11:16 [RFC] I suggest to add -Wall to autoconf and autoheader calls Felix Zielcke
2008-09-04 16:44 ` Pavel Roskin
2008-09-04 17:40 ` Felix Zielcke
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.