Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

Sam James <[email protected]> Tue, 15 Nov 2022 05:03:08 +0000

Newsgroups	dev.linux.lists.c-std-porting
Message-ID	<[email protected]>


> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
>> warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
>> that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive signature mismatch
>> is something we feel comfortable diagnosing (in some form) by default.
> 
> As long as these diagnostics by default do not cause the compiler to exit with nonzero status, we should be OK with Autoconf-generated 'configure' scripts. Although there will be problems with people who run "./configure CFLAGS='-Werror'", that sort of usage has always been problematic and unsupported by Autoconf, so we can simply continue to tell people "don't do that".
> 

Is there somewhere in the autoconf docs we actually say this?

I've seen a few instances of folks adding it themselves very
early in their configure scripts (which is a pain for distros
anyway) which then ends up affecting the rest.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 358 B)