Hello Tomas, * Tomas Carnecky wrote on Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:00:43AM CET: > On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Last time we looked at this code because someone reported oddities, we > > concluded that we shouldn't change the test because we had no way of > > verifying whether the test would still expose the documented issue > > afterwards. In general, you are of course right that tests shouldn't > > have undefined behavior, but sometimes that is unavoidable. > > I see. It was interesting to run the configure script through clang > and see which warnings it would generate. I'll just ignore those in > the future. Actually, I think it would make sense to have them reported and annotated in the macros somehow. After all, they could be actual bugs. I'm not sure whether it is useful to use annotations of a specific analysis tool like clang; one alternative would be to just note it in the comments before the macro. So if you care about this, here's a suggestion: run the full Autoconf test suite with TESTSUITEFLAGS='-d CC=...clang' to keep the test directories and with CC suitably set for analysis. Then let's examine the results. (If you choose not to do this, I can do it too, time permitting.) Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
