From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr (Theodore Papadopoulo) Cc: bkoz@redhat.com (Benjamin Kosnik), scherrey@switchco.com (Benjamin Scherrey), gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Latest snapshot won't build with --enable-libstdcxx-v3 Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:32:00 -0000 Message-id: <200009201530.IAA14094@racerx.synopsys.com> References: <200009200838.e8K8ctO28043@mururoa.inria.fr> X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00473.html > bkoz@redhat.com said: > >> messages. Why having done that anyway ??? I fill somewhat responsible > >> because this redirection was not here before I complained about the > >> use of Werror. > > it was always there > > But what is the rationale behind it ??? I wasn't the person who decided to put in -Werror, but I think it is a very good idea for libstdc++ to use it. Warnings produced by the inclusion of system library header files are not acceptable, because it means that no user of the library can use flags like -Wall without being distracted by warnings from the system library. (Old-time Cygnoids are sure to remember how I always used to beat them up for this - libg++ used to always generate piles of warnings, I'd send lots of little patches to fix them, and then the next release would put them all back again). Putting in -Werror forces the developers to produce warning-free code. (Now, warnings in files that will never be compiled by library users aren't a problem, but we currently don't have a way to change the warning level every time we cross an #include boundary).