This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] cygport: use -Werror=implicit-function-declarations

On Oct 17 12:06, Yaakov wrote:
> On 2013-10-17 04:38, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Oct 16 18:42, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>One potential drawback is that this flag may cause false negatives
> >>in poorly written configure tests; without extensive testing, I
> >>can't say yet how prevalent this would be, but I think that making
> >>this an error and perusing config.log is generally easier than
> >>making it just a warning and having to sift through the entire
> >>output of make.
> >
> >Uh... I'm not so sure about that.  I would rather see the configure
> >tests running through, but like the idea to have
> >-Werror=implicit-function-declaration set for the actual make stage.
> There is no practical way of changing CFLAGS between the configure
> and make stages.

Too bad.

> >It's more important that configure tests run to check for existence
> >of stuff, and not being able to configure is a really annoying
> >problem.
> configure would still run, but poorly written tests could return
> "no" when the correct answer is "yes".

That doesn't sound right to me.  The standard tests in configure should
not fail due to a CFLAGS setting.  They usually won't in case of later
autoconf versions which always add a prototype when checking for the
existance of a function, but what about configure tests which test
for *required* functionality.  There are enough configure scripts
out there which stop execution if some test fails, often version
tests of libs.  Consider a test which checks for at least version 2.3.4
of libfoo, which fails because of the -Werror=... setting.  The build
failure might lead to a misleading message along the lines of:

"You don't have libfoo installed.  Please install at least version 2.3.4"

That would be not exactly helpful, and not exactly obvious to autoconf

So, I'm still unsure.  As much as I like the idea to add the
implicit-function-declaration error to the build stage, it should not
break an otherwise working configure, IMHO.

But it might be interesting to see what other people think.  Maybe
I'm just too cautious here.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpVQKhUATZ5D.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]