Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 2022-11-15 06:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Could you clarify what you mean, with a concrete example? Surely as
long as errors are reported on stderr and the compiler exits with
non-zero status, that's an acceptable way to report errors?

Not if the "error" is harmless as far as Autoconf is concerned, which is what led to this thread. The concrete example here is that Autoconf needs to check whether a function can be linked to (as opposed to checking the function's signature). Clang shouldn't get in the way.

In lots of places the C standard says behavior is undefined, even though the behavior is fine on the current platform for the intended use. It's not just the example we're talking about; adding zero to a null pointer is another such example.

In such cases it's OK for Clang to warn, but having Clang exit with nonzero status is overkill and counterproductive.

[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux