bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?


From: Philipp Thomas
Subject: Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:27:17 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

* Bruno Haible (address@hidden) [20120624 13:05]:

> Unfortunately, a majority of the users (between 50% and 90%, I got the
> impression) runs "make; make install" without "make check".

>From my impressions I'd agree that 80 to 90% onlty do make; make install.

> And many of them would also ignore a #warning.

> To catch the attention of the users and let them get in touch with us for
> porting the code, one really has to provoke a build failure.

Yes, this is definitely the case. It's the same in our open build service:
many packagers will ignore warnings during build and only react to failures.
Many portability bugs (aliasing, 32<->64 bit issues etc.) were only fixed
after we turned the compiler warnings into build failures.

Philipp



reply via email to

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