On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Another aspect is -Wall and -Werror are moving (and > architecture dependent) targets. I.e. the number of warnings > GCC will issue changes over time, triggering different kind of > warnings. Yes, new compiler versions or includes (SDK updates) often lead to new warnings. > I.e. the best your "Development Rules" will be able to achieve > is "warning free" compilation in a very narrowly pre-defined > setup, with a well defined toolchain. Yes, you are right of course, those rules do not apply to all software and toolchains but to the we release as binary builds. > > The problem is that no one has submitted a patch to make > > configure and -Werror try to play nicely, until last month; > > and even then, it is not the easiest thing in the world to > > do. > > There is another aspect: There exist configure-checks which > rely on switching on/off -Werror. I haven't checked how this > recent submission co-exists with such kind of configure-checks. ohh sorry, I expressd myself wrongly. As I already wrote Eric, for us it does not matter how -Werror is switched internally, only that it is set within Makefile. oki, Steffen _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
