On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, David A. Wheeler wrote:
I think it is NOT a good idea for a developer to see warning
messages in his builds, but then suppress them for end-user builds.
Better to suppress them with good reason for all builds, if they are
not relevant! Or if not, at least document why certain warnings are
not being "fixed"... and they're way more likely to be fixed or
documented if the users can easily see them.
Sorry for being so late to return to this discussion thread ...
To be sure, I am a firm believer in warnings. Unfortunately, warnings
are very much compiler and compiler version dependent. Some compilers
produce many spurious warnings when set to a high warnings level.
If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by
default then GCC and other compilers will be less likely to include
useful warnings in options like -W -Wextra because they will cause
embarrasing build noise in most software. This is also
counter-productive to the cause.
Warnings should be seen by people who have an interest in and ability
to fix them.
There are other sorts of warnings (often more serious) which are being
soundly ignored by developers and users and continue unabated for
years. Take a look at .xsession-errors (or equivalent) on any desktop
oriented system for an example of this.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
