Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-10-20 20:15: > 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?
Ok, agreed. Now doing greps like this: grep 'requires.*AM_PROG_CC_C_O' stderr grep 'requires.*AM_PROG_AR' stderr >>>> 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. right > 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. Ok, I'll leave that for now if that's ok. I'm beginning to get fed up with these patches :-) Anyone want to to see the final spin? Cheers, Peter
