Re: [Opensync-users] Suggestion: remove -Werror

[Eduardo P. H. <eha...@co...>]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Armin Bauer wrote:
> I dont think this is a good idea. After all the warnings are supposed to
> help us by warning us of a possible problem. So i think its better if we
> go the hard way and just fix these compilation problems.

Well, that's a good point. -Werror is a problem only if we take too much
time to fix the compilation problems, and doesn't add any note or warning
anywhere, saying that the code as-is (i.e. without changes on Makefile)
won't build on gcc4 (that is the case until we fix the gcc4 warnings).

>=20
> Ill just install gcc4 here so i get these warnings as well so i can fix t=
hem

If we fix the warning, I agree to keep the flag. What I think that we
couldn't keep doing was: having code that we know that won't build,
and no warning anywhere about it.

BTW, I've just compiled opensyn cusing gcc 4.0.1, and I haven't seen any
warning. Is any of you seeing warnings on building opensync (I haven't
tested the plugins neither multisync) using gcc4?

>=20
> David Eriksson wrote:
> > Armin & others,
> >=20
> > I suggest that -Werror is removed from all Makefile.am files in
> > OpenSync/libsyncml.
> >=20
> > This will prevent unneccessary support requests for compilation problems
> > caused by stricted compilers (gcc4 :-) -- I have had a fair share of
> > those in SynCE for this reason!
> >=20
> > For developers, the same effect as having -Werror in Makefile.am can be
> > attained by setting the CFLAGS environment variable to -Werror before
> > running ./configure.=20
> >=20
> > (In order for this to work, it must be made sure that AM_CFLAGS and not
> > CFLAGS is used Makefile.am for this to work properly, but I don't think
> > this is an issue with OpenSync! :-)
> >=20
>=20
> I took a quickl look and im using AM_CFLAGS everywhere so this should
> already work. But like i said i think its better to use -Werror.

--=20
Eduardo