Re: playing w/ GCC warnings

[Rhys Ulerich]

Some variation on the AC_COMPILE_WARNINGS macro at the cryp.to archive may
be what you want (http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ac_compile_warnings.html).
There are several other warnings-related macros there.

- Rhys

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Thien-Thi Nguyen <address@hidden> wrote:

> What do people do to make experimentation w/ GCC warnings easy?
>
> In Guile-PG's configure.in, there is:
> |## If we're using GCC, ask for aggressive warnings.
> |if test x"$GCC" = xyes ; then
> |  AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS="-std=gnu99 -pedantic"
> |  for x in all extra float-equal declaration-after-statement \
> |           undef shadow pointer-arith cast-qual cast-align
> aggregate-return \
> |           old-style-definition no-missing-field-initializers \
> |           nested-externs inline volatile-register-var
> disabled-optimization
> |    do AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS="$AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS -W$x"
> |  done
> |fi
> |AC_SUBST([AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS])
>
> and in the src/Makefile.am:
> | AM_CFLAGS = $(AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS) $(MORE_AGGRESSIVE_WARNINGS)
>
> I do this in order to not touch CFLAGS.  I wonder if this is
> contra-indicated somehow, and if not, if the result can be
> achieved in a better (more idiomatic, more "standard") way.
>
> thi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>