Re: different CFLAGS for gnulib code?

[Simon Josefsson]

fre 2021-01-15 klockan 09:55 +0100 skrev Bruno Haible:
> It is an interesting idea. Leaving the question aside how it is
> implemented
> (through an AC_SUBSTed variable or what else), the main question is:
> Would
> some GNU package maintainers want this?
> 
> I always thought that GNU package maintainers want their entire
> package to
> be compiled with the same CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS. Would compiling the
> gnulib
> part with options for fewer warnings be OK with you?
> 
> Paul, Pádraig, Jim, Paul, Akim, Simon, all: what's your opinion?

In general I think different code need different flags.  Some things I
consider a no-no in my own code is not something I would enforce on
gnulib code, and vice versa.

1) It is already possible to do this, just write a local Makefile.am
and use gnulib-tool --makefile-name=gnulib.mk and do local compile flag
changes.  I do this sometime to disable -Werror for gnulib but I want
the -Werror flag to be enabled for my own code.

2) Sometimes building gnulib with the package flags results in
improvements to gnulib that I wouldn't otherwise notice.  I recall lots
of fixes to gnulib originating this way.

3) Sometimes building gnulib with the package flag causes problems, in
the past this happened with -Werror and I've stopped using -Werror by
default (I think) because gnulib's code tends to be more fragile when
it comes to compiler-specific detailed warnings than some of my own
code.

4) I'd like separate --enable-silent-rule settings for gnulib and my
own code.  When developing from git, I really don't want to see all of
gnulib's output but I would like to see the project's own output.  This
is probably possible to achieve using a gnulib.mk approach.  Having
native support for --enable-silent-gnulib-rules or support for 'make
V=2' would be useful.

/Simon

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part