* Stepan Kasal wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 06:26:56PM CEST: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:14:44PM +0200, Nico R. wrote: > > AC_LANG_PROGRAM(C) in c.m4 from autoconf: > > Shouldn’t the line > > main () > > be > > main (void) > > instead? > > I admit I'm not sure about this. The change would immediately break > K&R compilers but they are no longer in the target set anyway. > Let's wait for comments from those who know better. ;-) Hehe, I don't know better, but I'll take it as "those who think they should post their opinion anyway". ;-> IIRC, so far Autoconf still mostly supports pre-C89 compilers, even if maybe not fully. This would be a definite step away from that. (Stating this without having a strong opinion on it; I simply don't know how relevant that is to users.) > > If CFLAGS contains '-Werror’ > > Well, the configure collects literally bits of information about the > platform. The bit is 0 or 1, depending on whether the compilation > (link) failed or not. Using -Werror may skew some results. Exactly. We cannot get all macros warning-free, even when limiting ourselves to GCC's warnings. Some of Autoconf's macros necessarily rely on dubious constructs. > Generally, while -Werror during "make" makes you more safe, -Werror > at configure time exposes you to extra risk. > > Perhaps we should do something about it. Perhaps ./configure should > detect -Werror in CFLAGS (and other *FLAGS) and bail out with an > error message. I have already forgotten again whether the proposed AC_*_WERROR improvements also addressed this case: that we have a macro for which we would like to temporarily turn off -Werror, iff it had been passed. Even if we had such functionality, though, I'm not sure we would want to use it in the above case. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
