Dale Visser: >>> I have been working on a changes whereby an autoconf >>> user can invoke a macro like >>> AC_WARN_ADD([-Wextra]) Carsten Heinrici: > The point is the portability. Your flags (-Wextra) depend on the actual > compiler. This js against the philosophy behind autoconf, which tries to > abstract from it. I disagree, I think this is EXACTLY in the spirit of autoconf. AC_WARN_ADD is a probe, just like many other autoconf macros. In this case, this probe determines if "-Wextra" would be okay to add to the (current) compiler flag, and adds it ONLY if it's okay to add to add it. I think the macro needs a better name, e.g., "AC_ADD_FLAG_IFVALID" or something. As far as I can tell this flag-probing macro isn't limited to warnings at all, so its name may as well reflect that. That said, enabling or disabling warnings is what *I* would use this macro for. > What would be required is a general macro AC_EXTRA_WARNINGS without arguments > which could resolve to the actually current arguments of the tool. Dale Visser is also proposing something like this, though by default. I think it is *vitally* important that warning flags be on by *default*, as I've posted earlier. If it's only an option, then in many cases developers and users will fail to see the warnings that often hint at serious problems (as sadly happens now). --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
