From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7314 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2010 22:07:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 7306 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2010 22:07:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:07:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58942BABBC; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id cBWocCshwC+k; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976362BABBD; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:07:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 23C49F599F; Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:07:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:07:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [commit] Build memmem with -Wno-error. Message-ID: <20100831220720.GQ2986@adacore.com> References: <1283281706-30409-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <201008312134.16818.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100831212223.GO2986@adacore.com> <201008312259.20672.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201008312259.20672.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00582.txt.bz2 > Thanks. I was more concerned with the the fact that the file after > the patch is build with -Werror, and that that particular -W flag may > not exist in such order versions, and/or another flag is necessary to > disable the warning in question. One would assume not though, hence > me being fine with this until proven otherwise. :-) As far as I could tell, there is some configury to avoid the use of that flag if the compiler does not support it. build_warnings="-Wall -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith [...]" for w in ${build_warnings}; do case $w in -Werr*) WERROR_CFLAGS=-Werror ;; *) # Check that GCC accepts it saved_CFLAGS="$CFLAGS" CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $w" AC_TRY_COMPILE([],[],WARN_CFLAGS="${WARN_CFLAGS} $w",) CFLAGS="$saved_CFLAGS" esac done ? -- Joel