Re: [xen-4.0-testing test] 7147: regressions - FAIL

[Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>]

On 23/05/2011 16:40, "Ian Jackson" <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:

> Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.0-testing test] 7147: regressions
> - FAIL"):
>> Here's a nice short one that seems to work for me. It does rely on the
>> compiler emitting the word 'unrecognized' iff the option under test is
>> unrecognised. I strongly suspect this is a safe bet.
> 
> Sadly, some mad people run with LC_MESSAGES set to something other
> than C which produces native-language error messages even from gcc.

Well LC_ALL=C is easy to add.

>> Unfortunately I can't
>> see any way around grepping the output, since otherwise we can't distinguish
>> the integer-assignment-to-pointer warning from the unrecognised-option
>> warning.
> 
> We don't need to distinguish them.  We just need to know whether
> passing the option works or not.  That's what my patch does.

Ahhh... Is this because of a emitted-as-an-error-not-a-warning bug in Debian
gcc, on top of the more general lazily-detected-unrecognised-Wno-option
behaviour?

Well, tbh I'd rather get rid of unsupported -Wno- options in general, not
just where they are erroneously emitted as errors. Otherwise it will confuse
everyone that each time they get a compile warning they also get extra bogus
unrecognised option messages. That would be pretty crappy.

 -- Keir

> Ian.