From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: -Wall Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:58:36 +0200 Message-ID: References: <5702B7C9.6010805@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459796346 32492 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2016 18:59:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 04 20:58:53 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1an9i9-0000ng-Bm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:58:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60603 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1an9i5-00087v-Gf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:58:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37658) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1an9i1-00087K-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:58:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1an9hw-0005GY-8Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:58:45 -0400 Original-Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:47803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1an9hw-0005GU-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 14:58:40 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=stories) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an9hs-0006A2-Oa; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 20:58:38 +0200 Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAElBMVEUODhQ5OT4SExoNDRMI CQ4MDBHdutiZAAACVUlEQVQ4jVWUwXKjMAyGDczekdLckZvcnXp9L2DuUKP3f5X9ZSDT9SQzoE+S fwnLrh2SqvO2nNvze7kW7wHWwXkX1ZaZZw9weoNrTBqd7nkJ3q2+utfVhRg1FOT+gudvsCJbjF2M 2CAADRfAL8UYgztAW7PgD0sESc7Ad/UM3RmRStQSTtBdslyIX/Zs6d2KdyLiM6JhPMcLuPfex0oV IK5uDEM0WXiMEWC21CGm+A78o6Vg8xVCO2dOV/UoXAGgLSVN+g5AJ5O1pERzAX5L0H03MKNvi+p/ IKfVuyUV3RcttT6IcUmZGKDUL6PxrKQT4iFtAPWTjc8VcgZNP6j76T+mwVJpHpksVVlgt3Vf+wMI +ZudhNGaxo6xiXc55YlWIZf2fPjL5+2LADTTmFviVAMsJvYvRCw62QvRc6ruRM2TPZvckccsXliE 8CMamNkb2Ehe9217HXl6BhRvqX6eUOU3oc385d4KNwYifxALFLLtwHUfi5jDrf/Y9FNERi+wbA8R rh+qp2w5aKvunLl/9XZ82h5vjemkkaSY8MbA3LREDzkk0Tg9ELgNFQjfYa8qmWXsxx+y4/MtfW9B AMJJ6NaiSpuiWTx6dqS67ZN5eLazO7Pv3dm9lNHpxybeWR3m09WQT5tNJOJ6yGfvibwFHNM63ekY yrVpTRMKy38NLDVRBbfgoNNGu4556dyZyibisH0/7SSFA0yefNs6XSzRA/y8J9BdaG5dt1/XxRWx lNYNNqZ6gXIAeAQb5uEE+1JqyHHv2NDqmWvR9RcYQvpzAlw8dvP8A21Umiyfwqi7AAAAAElFTkSu QmCC In-Reply-To: <5702B7C9.6010805@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:51:53 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 80.91.224.195 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:202704 Archived-At: Paul Eggert writes: > On 04/04/2016 11:22 AM, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: >> There's a lot fewer warnings when compiling with -Wall in emacs/src now >> than there used to be, but there should be none, I think. > > I'm getting no warnings when I build. Hm... I just added -Wall to the options line in the Makefile, and I get a couple dozen. But examining most of these more closely, they're the result of this: RGB_PIXEL_COLOR corner_pixels[4], best IF_LINT (= 0); So I guess the IF_LINT is triggered by... something? Anyway, if you're not seeing any warnings with the setup you're using, shouldn't those options be the default compilation options? > It's more the other way around: -Wall doesn't generate enough > warnings. Please try './configure --enable-gcc-warnings'. This uses > -Wall plus some other warning flags that are useful in practice. I > regularly check that this builds cleanly for recent GCC on my platform > (Fedora 23, GCC 5.3.1 20151207 (Red Hat 5.3.1-2)), and occasionally > for recent Ubuntu, both using default configure-time options. > > If you'd like to take up the burden of porting --enable-gcc-warnings > to other platforms feel free, though my suggestion is to not bother > with older and/or rarely-used platforms as they have too many bugs in > this area. How about making that option the default on GNU/Linux systems? There would be less code for you to clean up after I've done C level changes and forgotten to twiddle the options. :-) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no