GCC seriously needs to be less picky.
Hi,
On 01/25/2011 10:07 PM, Chris Lumens wrote:
Don't tell me I have to catch the return value of write in a variable just
to later complain that I'm not doing anything with that variable. That's
borderline sociopathic behavior.
Erm, although I'm no longer part of the team I cannot help but respond here.
The warnings given by gcc-4.6 for unused-but-set-variable are very valid
and very useful. We hit a few in spice to and fixed them rather then just
disabling the warning, removing quite a bit of dead code.
As for your write case, the solution there of course is to do proper
error checking, ie as a minimum do:
if (write(...) == -1)
perror("write");
This way in the unlikely event that a write would fail despite you
expecting it never to fail, you at least have some chance of seeing
an error message pointing to the issue.
Regards,
Hans
---
configure.ac | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
index 6e677b5..ab37f4a 100644
--- a/configure.ac
+++ b/configure.ac
@@ -185,8 +185,12 @@ if test x$ipv6 = xyes ; then
AC_SUBST(IPV6_CFLAGS, [-DENABLE_IPV6])
fi
+# GCC likes to bomb out on some ridiculous warnings. Add your favorites
+# here.
+SHUT_UP_GCC="-Wno-unused-but-set-variable"
+
# Add remaining compiler flags we want to use
-CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wall -Werror -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE"
+CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wall -Werror $SHUT_UP_GCC -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE"
# Filter CFLAGS (remove duplicate flags)
cflags_filter() {
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
|
