Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 02:58:13 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@ofug.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: WARNS=6 changes Message-ID: <20030317025513.I14238@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpof4bcu8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <20030313192045.GG3819@elvis.mu.org> <20030316062315.GA75492@dragon.nuxi.com> <xzpof4bcu8b.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> writes: > > I am all for this change of making our C standard level C99. > > Do you think we should do this for lower WARNS than 6? As far as > > warnings go, -ansi (aka, -std=3Dc89) is responsable for all the 'long l= ong' > > warnings and that is why it was done at WARNS=3D=3D6. Since that will = go > > away, maybe we should turn on -std=3D at a lower WARNS. > > Hmm, I think it should be a separate knob. We can merge it into WARNS > later, but for now, we should just remove -ansi / -pedantic from > WARNS, and add a CSTD knob which can be either c89 or c99. -ansi -pedantic is required to give a C compiler (C90). Without it you don't even get warnings about errors, so it should be the first warning level. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030317025513.I14238>