Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:12:36 +0200
From:      Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Cc:        Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: WARNS=6 changes
Message-ID:  <20030314201236.GD8760@sunbay.com>
In-Reply-To: <p05200f29ba97dccd0dd3@[128.113.24.47]>
References:  <20030313192045.GG3819@elvis.mu.org> <20030314175814.GC94719@sunbay.com> <20030314181546.GH3819@elvis.mu.org> <p05200f29ba97dccd0dd3@[128.113.24.47]>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:43:04PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> 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=3D6 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?
>=20
> I think he's saying that he does not want the user to have a
> separate switch for WSTD.  WARNS=3D6 would always mean C99, or
> would never mean it.
>=20
Yes.  More precisely, I don't want it to affect WARNS=3D6.

> 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=3D6...  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...
>=20
If you want to switch between different stds, then user
redefineable CWARNFLAGS is probably what you should use.
(This is in an assumption that the last standard option
specified is what's getting used.)

As an aside, having -ansi in "warning flags" is probably
a bug anyway, as this is the language rather than warning
option.


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software AG,
ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251	Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org	The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com	Enabling The Information Age

--C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE+cje0Ukv4P6juNwoRAsNHAJ9mXZpPJYE6mxutFen4zrsc4QaF2wCeI8o+
bN8M28LtJrkecqtH27sPjzg=
=qLNY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--C+ts3FVlLX8+P6JN--

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?20030314201236.GD8760>