> Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by default Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> > I don't think anybody's advocating that. It'd be an option. I am *NOT* advocating engaging a *high* warning level by default. I *AM* advocating a *basic* warning level by default. I interpret that on gcc to be "-Wall" or some variant. One problem is that it's difficult to enable and control warning flags in general in a compiler-independent way; Dale Visser's patch provides a mechanism for doing that. Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > The typical practice is for packages to have a build-time option like > './configure --enable-gcc-warnings' which some developers use but most > builders do not. I agree, and I perceive that as a *problem*. We have a situation where builders have little idea that the software they're building has a host of likely problems. Developers typically work primarily on stuff that's visible to builders and true end-users. By making such problems more visible to builders by default, they're more likely to get fixed. --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
