Steffen Dettmer <steffen.dettmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > so the users that do not fix warnings during normal compilation > do not `forget' to run make warnings and then fix all the errors? > I would guess the users that forget to fix warnings are the same > that forget to run `make warning' :) Well, you also have the same problem with developers who don't remember to run the test suite. :) The best solution, in my experience, is to have a separate build host that periodically attempts to build the current trunk, using make warnings, and then runs the test suite and complains if it fails. > Isn't there a generic way? Configure has some `checking whether > we are using the gcc compiler', right? > So why not adding some `checking whether we are using the MS > compiler'? > (we have some if test $CC=CL.EXE check, but better would to run > it and check the output text / version number to find out what > it is, also to support options that have been renamed across the > versions / years) You can, and that would be more flexible, but it would also require researching and maintaining warning flags for whatever compilers you want to support. I haven't found that to be a particularly useful way to spend time, but then I'm mostly working on open source software where building with vendor compilers isn't that common. If you specifically want to support a particular vendor compiler, it may be worthwhile to do something more complex to select warning flags for that compiler as well. -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
