[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the right way to specify -Wno-format-contains-nul?
From: |
Bruce Korb |
Subject: |
Re: What is the right way to specify -Wno-format-contains-nul? |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:37:43 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 |
On 08/09/12 14:09, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
It seems that AM_PROG_CC
Huh? There is no such think like 'AM_PROG_CC'. I guess you mean
AC_PROG_CC.
Yes, thank you. Wrong forum, too. (autoconf not automake)
How can -Wall cause the compiler to die? Have you added -Werror to
$(AM_CFLAGS) maybe?
Me? No. My clients? Sometimes.
This would go against the principle that "the user is always right (when
he is explicit)"
Which is the root of the problem:
(Actually, gcc probably ought not override a specifically set option
with a "-Wall", but this the wrong forum for that...)
In that forum, it seems that some folks think that "-Wall" appearing after
"-Wno-some-obscure-warning-thingy" over-rides it, and others think it
nonsensical. I'm in the latter camp, obviously. I am explicit in that
this "format-contains-nul" should never have been warned about in the
first place and someone specifying CFLAGS a la:
./configure CFLAGS="-Dxxx -Wall -Werror"
ought to work, even given gcc's pickishness about format strings.
And, yes, in this particular case, I'd like to just say any user
turning on that warning is wrong -- whether deliberate or accidentally
with -Wall. So I'll fix it in GCC and we'll have it fixed in user
space in a few years. :)
Cheers - Bruce
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: What is the right way to specify -Wno-format-contains-nul?,
Bruce Korb <=