Hi Peter. On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-09-17 11:58 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > Or what about doing somethins similar to what gcc does, and add a > > new `-Wextra' category whose warnings are *not* enabled by > > `-Wall', but which, when enabled, still causes `automake > > -Werror' to fail? This (assuming your warning will become an > > "extra" one) would also have the positive collateral effect of > > not forcing you to change *any* existing test. WDYT? > > I'm not too thrilled if there would be no sign of a needed > AM_PROG_AR when "automake -Wall" is used. The fact is, IIUC (and please correct me if I don't), the ar-lib wrapper is required only when building on Windows with Microsoft developement tools.
Now, many projects might not care at all to support this building environment, while still wanting to use `-Wall' to catch common pitfalls; in this scenario, a warning triggered by `-Wall' about missing AM_PROG_AR would be just an annoyance. Worse again, the use of `-Wall -Werror' would *force* the use of AM_PROG_AR and ar-lib, and the developers of aforementioned projects might see this forced additions as useless bloat. On the other hand, if we add a new warning class (say `-Wwin32' or `-Wwindows-portability') we'd allow the developers interested in porting to Windows to enable the relevant warnings (for now only the warning about missing AM_PROG_AR, but new ones can be added in the future), without hassling the developers interested in supporting only "true" Unix platforms. > I'm not sure if anybody will ever add AM_PROG_AR without a > poke if it's that invisible. Hmmm... you have a point here, but I still hold my position. Maybe we should point clearly to the new `-Wwindows-portability' warning class in key places of the Automake manual (with proper examples)? Or even add a whole new section about "building on Windows"? > But as always in these decisions, I'm biased so > take this with a grain of salt... > > Cheers, > Peter Regards, Stefano
