[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Avoidable warning in getdtable.c?

From: Reuben Thomas
Subject: Re: Avoidable warning in getdtable.c?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:54:27 +0000

On 13 March 2018 at 16:40, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
On 03/13/2018 12:51 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
Would it be acceptable to add a pragma

I'm not a fan of cluttering the code just to pacify a false alarm. In my experience, for Gnulib -Wtautological-compare is more trouble than it's worth.

See coreutils for an example of using different -W options for Gnulib code than for the app itself; that should address the issue without Gnulib clutter.

​I agree as a general principle. However, this case seems to me one where we should not put that burden on the gnulib user, since it's only on old systems (presumably a tiny number as a proportion of all those in use) that rlim_t can even be signed.

I see you seem to have put a similar pragma for the same warning in anytostr.c.

Thanks for the pointer to how to compile gnulib with different flags. If you're really against adding a pragma in this case, then how about changing manywarnings to use suitable flags for gnulib code? (Though I can see potential problems with that too…)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]