Re: [lmi] MinGW gcc-4.3, and .tar.lzma

[Greg Chicares]

On 2008-08-31 23:45Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:31:15 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
[options for gcc-4.x]
> 
>  There is another warning which needs to be disabled in debug build:
> -Wdisable-optimization, enabled now, results in
> 
> cc1plus.exe: warnings being treated as errors
> cc1plus.exe: error: -funit-at-a-time is required for inlining of functions 
> that are only called once
> make: *** [liblmi_la-authenticity.lo] Error 1
> 
> (using autoconf-based build system but it should be the same for the
> official makefiles). I think this warning doesn't make sense unless an -O
> option is also specified (which would also enable -funit-at-a-time), do you
> agree?

I think '-Wdisabled-optimization' makes no sense at all for lmi, and
I will therefore remove it.

Once upon a time, I saw it in the manual, so I enabled it. It didn't
seem to cause any problem, so I left it there. IOW, I strongly agree
with Gaby [the less-indented writer] in this gcc-patches thread:

http://www.nabble.com/PATCH-RFA:-Support--Wmissing-declarations-in-C%2B%2B-td7877603.html
|
| | I disagree.  Nobody is going to accidentally turn on this option
| | thinking that it is useful, unless they understand what it does.
|
| I strongly disagree with that assertion.
[...]
| | (I will try to say again what I tried to say earlier: this warning is
| | for a particular coding style.  If you don't use that coding style,
| | then don't use this warning.  gcc has dozens of warnings.  I think
| | it's silly to argue that each warning not included in -Wall
| | constitutes a moral hazard.  People who enable warnings get what they
| | asked for.)
|
| The trouble with that reasoning is that it does not match reality.
| People who use coding style switches mechanically enforced by the
| compiler don't think they deserve what they get. Another trouble is
| that they tend to act like viruses and spread through third-party
| libraries forcing people to code in particular way, even when that
| does not just make sense (refer to my previous messages as to how that
| spreads).  Please again consider -Weffc++ to see what I mean.
| What would be silly is that we do not think interactions with
| idiomatic constructs carefully through.