|Subject:||RE: Turn on compiler warnings by default for AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX & AC_PROG_FC|
|Date:||Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:01:57 -0500|
I've created a new patch (attached) incorporating your suggestions. See my comments inline below.
> From: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Turn on compiler warnings by default for AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX & AC_PROG_FC
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:49:11 -0500
> CC: address@hidden
> it makes sense to go ahead and add it. This suggests that you need to carefully word
> the "IFVALID" macro output, something like this:
> checking if -Wno-such-option can be added to CFLAGS... yes
> so that users know that it "can be added", vs. "is supported".
Done, with the wording you suggested. On my system (gcc version is 4.8.1), I tested the gcc oddity you mentioned and found that it only applied to flags of the form -Wno-*. E.g., -Wnosuchoption and -Wjunk would still not be added, but -Wno-way would be added and harmlessly ignored.
> ./doc/autoconf.texi:23579: warning: `(' follows defined name `AC_APPEND_FLAG_IFVALID' instead of whitespace.
> Can you fix the documentation to remove those warnings?
Done. For some reason, those warning never showed for me. How fitting... :-)
> Also, I have a a few other minor comments about the documentation text.
> I think the text should FIRST say what it does, then later who uses it.
Done. I *was* inconsistent on a couple of macros, and that was going against the established documentation style.
> It should also cross-reference other related macros if the user might want to use that one instead,
> in particular, I think AC_APPEND_FLAG should cross-reference to AC_APPEND_FLAG_IFVALID,
> because I think most users would typically use that instead (or at least want to know about it).
Thank you for your helpful comments. Let me know what you think of the latest.
Description: Binary data
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|