Testing for unknown flags in different compilers (Paul Eggert)

[David A. Wheeler]

> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > If Autoconf (or packages using it) engages a high warning level by default


Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> I don't think anybody's advocating that.  It'd be an option.

I am *NOT* advocating engaging a *high* warning level by default.
I *AM* advocating a *basic* warning level by default.
I interpret that on gcc to be "-Wall" or some variant.

One problem is that it's difficult to enable and control warning flags in 
general
in a compiler-independent way; Dale Visser's patch provides a mechanism
for doing that.

Paul Eggert <address@hidden>:
>  The typical practice is for packages to have a build-time option like 
> './configure --enable-gcc-warnings' which some developers use but most 
> builders do not.

I agree, and I perceive that as a *problem*.  We have a situation where
builders have little idea that the software they're building has a
host of likely problems.

Developers typically work primarily on stuff that's visible to
builders and true end-users.  By making such problems more visible
to builders by default, they're more likely to get fixed.

--- David A. Wheeler