Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 14:43:04 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.ORG>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WARNS=6 changes Message-ID: <p05200f29ba97dccd0dd3@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20030314181546.GH3819@elvis.mu.org> References: <20030313192045.GG3819@elvis.mu.org> <20030314175814.GC94719@sunbay.com> <20030314181546.GH3819@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:15 PM +0100 3/14/03, Maxime Henrion wrote: >Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > > This patch changes the default standard used for warnings > > > from c89 to c99. It only affects WARNS=6 code (that is, very > > > few code). It also makes it possible to select another > > > standard with the WSTD variable if we ever need to. > > > > I think that *not* hard-coding WSTD is not good, because it > > then may mean different things for different settings. > >I'm not sure I understand your concerns here. Could you explain >what you mean a bit please? I think he's saying that he does not want the user to have a separate switch for WSTD. WARNS=6 would always mean C99, or would never mean it. Me, I'd kinda like the idea of a separate switch for which standard to use, but I'm not sure why that switch would only be for WARNS=6... Basically I'm inclined to think that trying to merge the 4800 different -W flags of gcc into just one numerical value is pretty much a hopeless task anyway... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu 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?p05200f29ba97dccd0dd3>