Greg Stein wrote:
>> When trying to revert r34258, I noticed I had to do an all clean trunk
>> checkout to make this error go away. `make dist-clean' wasn't enough! So I
>> think there might be a bug or missing feature in the build scripts that
>> doesn't remove some libraries upon make clean, huge question mark? Got no
>> idea really.
>
> Yah. That's bad. I'd need to see more info / failure messages / etc
> before I could figure out what is wrong. That said, since you're going
> to re-run autoconf to alter the flags coming out of configure.ac, then
> you really should have run extra-clean.
You mean `extraclean'. I didn't know that, thanks! I'll use extraclean from
now on.
>
>> I feel that we're not ready for it yet,
>> especially in this phase of development. Maybe there are other people out
>
> What phase is that? The phase where we get to hide warnings to reach
> some kind of pretend-clean build? Where no warnings are issued simply
> because we didn't turn on flags? Where the warnings are present, but
> because we put on our blinders that we can ignore them?
Yeah, I was expecting that :)
> :-) ... I respectfully disagree. This is just as fine as a time as
> any. I made no change to the code. Nothing was destabilized. It is
> simply that GCC will give us more info about where our code may have
> problems, or could be clearer.
But I need to see any new warnings I am introducing while I'm fixing totally
unrelated stuff. If I see other warnings all over, it makes that part very
difficult.
Ok, maybe instead of a branch we should post a transcript of the new
warnings so that people scan it when they choose, not on every compile.
> Personally, I think that cleaning up warnings is one of those
> "bite-sized tasks" that new developers could help with. Or things to
> do when you're tired of slogging through update_editor.c, and need
> something brainless.
lol, I know what you mean :)
> I thought we had all these extensive errors, and when I started
> developing again, missed them. But I traced the flags all the way back
> to CVS, and couldn't find anything. I suspect that older GCCs gave
> more warnings than today's, so we need to force gcc into being
> noisier. I was appalled when I found that I could call a function
> without a prototype -- gcc was "supposed" to tell me. But no...
> missing flags. Thus, I put a bunch back in. We can make all kinds of
> mistakes, and the current flagset doesn't tell us. I think these flags
> are important for all (gcc-based) developers to have and to respond
> to.
+1 for a concerted effort to remove the warnings that were previously
omitted, and to change the --maintainer-mode build on trunk afterwards, as
soon as possible.
Greg, could you post a clean `make | grep "^[^[:blank:]]\+: "' using all of
the -Wflags that work on your GCC? In case I don't get all of the warnings
with mine.
Thanks
~Neels
Received on 2008-11-19 07:38:46 CET