bug-autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Warnings for excessive macro arguments


From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: Re: Warnings for excessive macro arguments
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:28:29 +0300
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Goj┼Ź) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.2 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Yavor Doganov wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:10:49PM CEST:
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > >   AC_INIT([Pkg], [1.0], [bug], [pkg], [website])
> > > 
> > > Do you think that 'autoconf-2.63 -Wall -Werror' should have errored out
> > > for the website argument?
> > 
> > Of course it should not and it would not error out.  2.63 is history,
> > so there's no way a hypothetical feature we're discussing now to be
> > available there
> 
> It was meant as an example of the kind of changes that can happen again
> in the future, and that, had the excessive-argument-warning been
> implemented in 2.63, would have caused an error with the above
> invocation, thus an incompatible change.

Ah, sorry that I failed to understand it.  Hypothetically speaking, if
the feature [$SUBJECT] was available in that old Autoconf version, and
the user was unwise enough to use `-Wall -Werror', than yes, she
should get a syntax failure because that's what she requested for in
the first place.  I think this is sensible behavior -- using -Werror
with Autoconf (and GCC, and ...) will always grant you "presents" like
this one.

Anyway, it was not my intention to argue, or confront in any way.  I
just thought that a feature like this could spare some developers'
time (analyzing bugs in autoconf/m4 macros is sometimes time
consuming, as the m4 manual says :-)).  Let's move over if it's
problematic enough to be ever considered.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]