Re: [Pio-temporary] Re: [ pio-Patches-1293678 ] Enable compiler warnings without debugging support

[Brian W. <bwe...@xb...>]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Roland Clobus wrote:

> If --enable-warnings=yes is used, it will result in the same situation
> as the current, except that the warnings will not be enabled when the
> compiler is not called gcc (perhaps not a good idea, since it can
> also be e.g. gcc-3.3)

This could easily be worked around by checking for a --version option and 
parsing the result if there is one.

> But I was experimenting with what would happen if I enabled nearly all
> compiler warnings, --enable-warnings=full. It turns out that a few
> useful additional warnings were given.
>
> I've looked in gnome-compiler-flags.m4 (part of the gnome-common
> package) for ideas.  It contains an AM_macro that enables compiler
> warnings, but they are less strict than the collection of warnings we
> currently use. It think we should at least keep the current list of
> warning checks.
>
> However, gnome-compiler-flags.m4 contains a nice for loop that will
> check the capability of gcc to use a certain -Wflag. Perhaps that can
> be used to determine the available gcc warning flags.

Sounds good.

> --enable-warnings: for compiler warnings
> --enable-debug: for -ggdb3 and -O
> --enable-logging: for -DDEBUG
> --enable-deprecation-checks -D*_DISABLE_DEPRECATED
> --enable-developer-only

I'm not sure why we'd want to set -O if --enable-debug is specified; it 
makes debugging harder.  I could actually see setting -O if 
--enable-warnings is specified, since gcc stupidly only prints certain 
types of warning if optimization is enabled.

> developer-only would turn on all four.
> ./configure --enable-developer-only --disable-logging should then be
> able have all warnings and debug information, but without the
> logging.

I like that idea.

> Using CFLAGS should work again.

Good.

>>>> I could try to come up with a patch to do this if there's
>>>> interest, but I'm not going to fight with autoconf unless
>>>> there's consensus.
>
> I've made many changes to the autoconf script already. It would not be
> hard for me to implement the mentioned changes.

OK.

>> Agreed.  Your patch is definitely an improvement over the current code,
>> and should be applied.  The we can figure out what the best way to move
>> forward from there.
>
> Agreed.
> But since I've put some time into this, and I might as well finish my
> patch, I would like to propose the following:
> In about 18 hours from now I can spend some time for Pioneers again.
> If I don't have a patch posted in 24 hours from now, let's apply the
> patch from Bas, otherwise look at the new patch.

I'm ok with this too.

Brian