At Sun, 19 Oct 2025 15:21:30 -0400, Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
Subject: Re: Fixing configure failures from newer gcc
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 at 14:36, Greg A. Woods <woods%planix.ca@localhost> wrote:
>
> > So, I don't believe it is _ever_ worthwhile for pkgsrc to suppress
> > compiler warnings.
>
> And when they are accompanied by -Werror?
Remove and obliterate the errant "-Werror"!
But that is a separate issue from the "-std=*"/"-Wno-error=*" issue, or
at least it should be, for now.
> To be specific. GCC compilers were overly zealous when it came to
> structure initializers. For instance, rejecting:
> my_struct = {0}; // blame microsoft?
> Is stripping -Werror, or adding -Wno-struct-initializers, the less
> evil of the two choices? Complaining upstream is likely to be met
> with an eye role :-)
Anyone who ships code with "-Werror" is either absent-minded, or isn't
trusting their own code, or worst of all is expecting downstream users
to do their dirty work for them. That's independent from whether or not
their code might trip a warning from some esoteric compiler it hasn't
been introduced to yet.
Build systems like pkgsrc don't need/want "-Werror" any more than they
need or want dependency maintenance overhead during a one-time build.
--
Greg A. Woods <gwoods%acm.org@localhost>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods%robohack.ca@localhost>
Planix, Inc. <woods%planix.com@localhost> Avoncote Farms <woods%avoncote.ca@localhost>
Attachment:
pgpmiWZl6yUBS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature