Re: [Bug-apl] Fwd: Re: Bogus compiler warnings

[enztec]

what ever the reason for his error - the sheer magnitude of the very 'version 
specific autoconf 1.15?/automake' patch being accepted - is of concern to me
it should be kept local to his machine?


On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 23:46:19 +0800
Elias Mårtenson <address@hidden> wrote:

> Wasn't the problem that he was using an outdated compiler which gave bogus
> warnings when there actually was no problem?
> 
> Regards,
> Elias
> 
> On 11 March 2017 at 23:05, <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > you do not want to do this - it just makes code with less confidence in it
> > the initialization warnings should be taken care of in the code - so the
> > are no run time problems
> > doing it in compiler makes sure you are doing the right types later in run
> > time
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:16:32 +0100
> > Juergen Sauermann <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > thanks. As of SVN 899 you can now say, for example,
> > >
> > > ./configure CXX_WERROR=no
> > >
> > > Your patch was also patching generated files created by
> > autoconf/configure which,
> > > I believe, only works if the same configuration is being patched..
> > >
> > > /// Jürgen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 03/10/2017 08:09 AM, Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
> > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
> > > Here is the patch which introduces the new configure option:
> > > --disable-werror
> > > If this option is set then the -Werror flag is not added to compiler
> > > options.
> > > By default it is like it is now - -Werror is present.
> > >
> > > With this option I was able to turn off compiler warnings.
> > >
> > > I ran autoreconf on my machine but it produces more diffs, which I don't
> > > want to attach. I believe it is better to you to run it on your machine
> > > and submit to svn instead of me providing them as a patch.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >