2012-10-22 21:37:16

by Steve Dickson

Subject: [PATCH] Added more compile warning options

To ensure the code compiles cleaner, the following warning options
are now set
-Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes -Wstrict-aliasing
-Wconversion -Wsign-conversion -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wsign-conversion -pedantic -Wmissing-prototypes

Signed-off-by: Steve Dickson <[email protected]>
---
configure.ac | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index a174bf4..197823f 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -448,7 +448,11 @@ case $host in
ARCHFLAGS="" ;;
esac

-my_am_cflags="-Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes $ARCHFLAGS -pipe"
+WFLAGS="-Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes -Wstrict-aliasing \
+ -Wconversion -Wsign-conversion -Wmissing-prototypes \
+ -Wsign-conversion -pedantic -Wmissing-prototypes"
+
+my_am_cflags="$WFLAGS $ARCHFLAGS -pipe"

AC_SUBST([AM_CFLAGS], ["$my_am_cflags"])

--
1.7.11.7

2012-10-22 21:43:39

by Jim Rees

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added more compile warning options

Steve Dickson wrote:

To ensure the code compiles cleaner, the following warning options
are now set
-Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes -Wstrict-aliasing
-Wconversion -Wsign-conversion -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wsign-conversion -pedantic -Wmissing-prototypes

You only need to specify them once. You've got sign-conversion and
missing-prototypes twice. Also I think -pedantic is going too far.

2012-10-23 14:45:12

by Steve Dickson

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added more compile warning options

Hey Jim,

On 22/10/12 17:43, Jim Rees wrote:
> Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> To ensure the code compiles cleaner, the following warning options
> are now set
> -Wall -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes -Wstrict-aliasing
> -Wconversion -Wsign-conversion -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wsign-conversion -pedantic -Wmissing-prototypes
>
> You only need to specify them once. You've got sign-conversion and
> missing-prototypes twice.
Yeah... I noticed that after I posted the patch... This was more
of an RFC patch than anything... I just wanted to get people's opinion...

> Also I think -pedantic is going too far.
Why? The one patch its used for does the following:

-gss_OID g_mechOid = GSS_C_NULL_OID;;
+gss_OID g_mechOid = GSS_C_NULL_OID;

Which seems reasonable... What do you see that I don't?

steved.