From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [xen-4.0-testing test] 7147: regressions - FAIL Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 16:49:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <19930.32778.342171.90825@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19930.32778.342171.90825@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: Ian Campbell , Olaf Hering , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 23/05/2011 16:40, "Ian Jackson" 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.