Re: [PATCH 2/2] warnings: new 'extra-portability' category, for AM_PROG_AR

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Thursday 20 October 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-10-20 17:11:
>
> > Micro-nit: this would be clearer IMHO:
> > 
> >   # Interactions between `portability' and `extra-portability'
> >   # warning categories:
> >   #   1. `-Wextra-portability' must imply `-Wportability'.
> >   #   2. `-Wno-portability' must imply `-Wno-portability'.
> 
> fine with me (but with -Wno-extra-portability at the end of 2).
>
Right, sorry.
 
> >> +AUTOMAKE_fails -Wnone -Wextra-portability
> >> +# The expected diagnostic is
> >> +#    Makefile.am:2: compiling `foo.c' with per-target flags requires 
> >> `AM_PROG_CC_C_O' in `configure.in'
> >> +#    .../lib/am/library.am: `libfoo.a': linking libraries using a 
> >> non-POSIX
> >> +#    .../lib/am/library.am: archiver requires `AM_PROG_AR' in 
> >> `configure.in'
> >> +#    Makefile.am:1:   while processing library `libfoo.a'
> >> +grep '^Makefile.am:2:.*requires.*AM_PROG_CC_C_O' stderr
> >> +grep '/library.am:.*requires.*AM_PROG_AR' stderr
> >> +
> > No need to also grep the filenames here.  Similarly for other usages
> > throughout the file.
> 
> Do you mean /library.am only, or do you also mean Makefile.am:2:?
>
Both.

> If you do not think Makefile.am:2: is needed, then why did you want me
> to grep `FILE:LINENO' for the other patch, but not here?
>
Because here we are only interested in checking the relationship
between the `portability' and `extra-portability' warning classes,
not to ensure the competelness of the error messages; these are
orthogonal concerns IMHO, and should better pertain to distinct
tests (unless keeping them separate would become to cumbersome,
but I think this is not the case here).  Do you agree?

> >> diff --git a/tests/extra-portability2.test b/tests/extra-portability2.test
> >> new file mode 100755
> >> index 0000000..9f4948b
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/tests/extra-portability2.test
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
> >> +#! /bin/sh
> >> +# Copyright (C) 2011  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> >> +#
> >> +# Make sure that extra-portability is not enabled by --gnits, --gnu
> >> +
> >> +cat >>configure.in <<END
> >> +AC_PROG_CC
> >> +AC_PROG_RANLIB
> >> +AC_OUTPUT
> >> +END
> >> +
> >> +cat >Makefile.am <<END
> >> +EXTRA_LIBRARIES = libfoo.a
> >> +libfoo_a_SOURCES = foo.c
> >> +END
> >> +
> >> +$ACLOCAL
> >> +
> >> +# Make sure the test is useful.
> >> +AUTOMAKE_fails
> >>
> > How is it that automake is failing here, without explicilty
> > using `-Wextra-portability'?
> 
> -Wall implies *all* warnings, remember?
>
Right, sorry *blush*.  But then ...

> >> +$AUTOMAKE --foreign
> >> +$AUTOMAKE --gnu
> >> +$AUTOMAKE --gnits
> >> +
... why is not automake failing here?  $AUTOMAKE still contains the
`-Wall' option ...  Oh, got it, you are relying on the fact that a
strictness option also reset the warnings to its corresponding
defaults.  But this is was a long-standing bug of automake, which
has been fixed in the master branch.  So, once msvc is merged back,
this test will porbably start to fail ...  oh well, I guess we can
cross the bridge when we come to it.

Thanks,
  Stefano