Re: pattern rules

[Ralf Hemmecke]

On 03/27/2008 01:11 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Hemmecke wrote on Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:34PM CET:
> > Makefile.am:8: `%'-style pattern rules are a GNU make extension
> > autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
>
> > Is there something wrong with
> >
> > AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE([-Wall -Werror])
>
> As of Automake 1.10, -Wall includes -Wportability.  So use
>   -Wall -Wno-portability -Werror
>
> instead.  Quoting from NEWS:
>
> |  - `-Wportability' has finally been turned on by default for `gnu' and
> |    `gnits' strictness.  This means, automake will complain about %-rules
> |    or $(GNU Make functions) unless you switch to `foreign' strictness or
> |    use `-Wno-portability'.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf

Thank you. But what exactly is

  -Wno-portability

allowing?

---BEGIN quote from 
http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Invoking-Automake

-W CATEGORY
--warnings=category
    Output warnings falling in category. category can be one of:
    ...
    portability
        portability issues (e.g., use of make features that are
        known to be not portable)

---END quote

It is not so clear what this relates to. Is it only related to the 
'make' program or also some portability issues outside of it? In other 
words, can I simply say "no-portability" and don't relax strictness in 
places not related to GNU make features?

The "e.g." in the above documentation bothers me. What else would 
automake *not* complain about if I use "no-portability"?

Ralf