From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KbIod-0006lv-1E for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:40:19 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbIob-0006lU-Cb for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:40:17 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbIoZ-0006kR-AX for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:40:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37367 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KbIoY-0006jv-AD for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:40:14 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:51270) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KbIoX-0006ps-4w for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:40:14 -0400 Received: from [85.180.61.73] (e180061073.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.180.61.73]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu8) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0ML31I-1KbIoV2XEv-0006Yt; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:40:11 +0200 From: Felix Zielcke To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <1220546685.16992.31.camel@dv> References: <1220527014.4167.28.camel@fz.local> <1220546685.16992.31.camel@dv> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:40:10 +0200 Message-Id: <1220550010.18782.24.camel@fz.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+F8/FBA/uPbJl5wrZBjNbRUkvteZHd0NKZjBg rKsRfOm4z9oc98AomjTTSkVn1FlwYur1uKBQj1C5k0nXCH7jzt hvwJoVXZATGkbELqjf+Gj/TDf1t21VQ X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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 17:40:17 -0000 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