From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alex Gramiak Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Checking all C warning flags at once during configuration Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:53:58 -0600 Message-ID: <87d0l4ooah.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="215217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 29 16:55:28 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hL7gj-000tnI-8Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 16:55:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58728 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hL7gi-0005Nf-5M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:55:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hL7g4-0005NK-PF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:54:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hL7g3-0006tt-UJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:54:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]:40177) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hL7g3-0006tS-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 10:54:43 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id b3so5186236plr.7 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=wwRDgGeIpw0uS5WSNEIIkHhChJEorqfeOb+HXMiHErU=; b=UIPfx14xzpGi9rLhcWTFTOtSocGdpqx2hMSX7HpQ9cRB0aquzdbV8TnS4UM0YG87eE nVYj9MoeYnQ4E6OZ4xZEnJ/pprhx6hOQICF7L9GAwJZyyysvEKV43jiEW1BAboyJI7ul lHtgwZaVfwQK7agsrsYK5Gvucqb0rZjWoUwUUmz9v3OjHvDWoWeprWUffGfrmDlDKfWZ WY+HrqukZHV6/ti/I/F2hrNC1T5mzswImeB8vaaril/RH/pY3PjZWK210+FujBEdB82O UxQMsEhMF/rL3euup1+CCihJSG55MuFMJnVg1pd2IhwVQOk2qq4bfVBS4cSLUrYacBye bmSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=wwRDgGeIpw0uS5WSNEIIkHhChJEorqfeOb+HXMiHErU=; b=algt2VHevs0AqcsF9LHth6KEi0c2kq7u0FdUXXQ23vIbkhiVQvJTlwTgHQPC/Rdv3q 9LjAkKm3gUZp7G7FTavWwI68sLZE64j8KBPjjr7zpD5MVj6id4YX70lb9a66F4vpzXhF UR8OcGAfW42M752S1pdtcGJoNI/xnl5Q5p0s8S2fH6LIXKWypQrQ4K9tim+1kNnPl0ou 1+mXbIbTTDEGeIMgQ52xd9aLthFqa6L1ufZ83HgPg05V4MKN4HYnW2PPqXibxzOZ/tap YDk+QdWdS9YiZRbUg8I+MOV29Hob0x/YDnJDXIoVeyj6qzLeOSGizANZafwjvuwhGrCu vuqg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/W2UCRgxnDHyW1PTxacd8vq12DCJALwvqKekRyFDQg7xdgom1 yZljRLXTNg9unDCrAEirlupDgqWA X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzkE0E72epMTOSY7mDBR2s8qqI6RVgtCljGuh6T0zNpit907q/PkV5n1rzXyEbk3UwnQDPjDg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9889:: with SMTP id s9mr1217941plp.235.1556549681197; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from lylat ([2604:3d09:e37f:1500:1a72:4878:e793:7302]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w65sm11620853pfb.59.2019.04.29.07.54.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:54:38 -0700 (PDT) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:236029 Archived-At: There was recently a discussion about the long configuration step of the build process, and I noticed that a non-negligible section involved checking support for specific C warning flags. Assuming that most/all of the warnings are supported by common modern compilers, would it make sense to first check _all_ (or, at least the commonly supported) warning flags simultaneously and then only check them individually if there was an error? This way the common behaviour would be sped up a bit, and the case of unsupported flags would just be an extra AC_LINK_IFELSE slower.