* Chris Frey wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 08:00:23PM CEST: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 07:34:26PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Just add -Werror at 'make' time if you need to use it. > > I was afraid of that. Is there a way to give configure one set of > CFLAGS just for its own testing? Not without an override at 'make' time, or a hard-code at the end of configure. But really you are kind of circumventing the idea of the configure script: it should test as closely as possible the way things will work at 'make' time. The more you deviate from that, the less reliable your configure test results will be. * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 09:11:10PM CEST: > > Also I dislike that our macros that implement e.g. -Werror and friends have > to know all supported compilers and their switches. Is there a better way > to do that? gnulib has some macros that deal with warning flag addition. They are mostly for GCC though (but they do test whether the compiler accepts them.) > > (but a good editor that parses 'make' output does just as well). > > (...maybe team mates that need -Werror [because otherwise check > in warnings] tend not to use editors that parse make output... SCNR ;) ) Yes that seems like a plausible theory. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
