RFC: Avoiding #warning (C/C++ preprocessor extension)

[Michael Pyne]

On Monday 31 October 2005 17:15, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > I would
> > say that no release tarball should contain -Werror.  It may be useful
> > during development but it would be unnecessarily painful for release.
>
> ... so you cannot even have it in development, except if everybody would
> use the same gcc version.

Well the idea is that all of the warnings would be fixed between all of the 
compilers.  i.e. the union of all warning flags would be fixed.  This may be 
unrealistic but then again I haven't heard of compilers removing perfectly 
good warnings so that really shouldn't be an issue.

The issue is when some poor soul tries to compile a package that worked with 
gcc X but they have gcc X+1 and so it breaks for no reason.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20051031/1dafaa8f/attachment.sig>