Re: -Werror

[Marc Espie <espie%nerim.net@localhost>]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 01:43:59PM +0100, Jonathan Perkin wrote:
> My main concern here is that we are being told "don't do that" but
> there is no direction on what we should be doing instead.  It is also
> unclear whether this is strictly limited to -Werror or whether it
> encompasses a larger set of constructs - after all, many of the other
> hacks already in pkgsrc have similar if not higher risks attached.

Seriously, there is a clear direction on how you can go about improving
things. Start putting some pressure on the FSF guys to actually give
us sane warnings in gcc.

That's what it all amounts to: -Werror is unusable for production because
of the false positives and the HUGE variations from one release to the next.

If there was a way to have something like -Wsafe-deadly-errors-only
then I'm pretty sure *everyone* would be happy to use that.

But no, 20 years down the line, gcc is still some experimental compilers
that gains useless warnings one release, false positives the next, and back
down from all that to invent more arcane stuff.