Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 13:24:18 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: RE: WARNS granularity Message-ID: <XFMail.011204132418.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20011204131152.A73842@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 04-Dec-01 David O'Brien wrote:
> IMO our WARNS values {0,1,2} are not granular enough.
>
> I would like to make 1 ==> -Werror only. This would help prevent
> regressions with sources that do not produces warnings with the default
> GCC warnings.
>
> WARNS=2 would add:
> -Wall
> I think having a WARNS level that is just -Wall is useful as -Wall is the
> most common thing GCC users compile with if they use any warnings at all.
>
> WARNS=3 would be the same as today's `1', which adds:
> -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
> -Wno-uninitialized
>
> WARNS=4 would be the same as today's `2', which adds:
> -Wreturn-type -Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings -Wswitch -Wshadow
>
> Objections? Improvements to the idea?
Since -Wno-uninitialized actually turns off some warnings, I think you would
want it in WARNS=2 as well. One question: is the WARNS thing intended to be
compatible with some other OS?
Oh, and -Wcast-align looks like it could be useful in tracking down those pesky
alignment faults on non-i386, so putting that in WARNS=4 might be useful.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.011204132418.jhb>