Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 12:22:17 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update to compiler options for DJGPP CVS version
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.10105141110360.30990-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010514121947.25445A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 14 May 2001, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> > On Mon, 14 May 2001, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > 
> > > These are all easily fixed, and in many cases makes the code easier to
> > > read, and thus easier to maintain.  I would rather keep -Wtraditional
> > > in, it may spot a bug, and it helps keep the code clean and readable.
> > 
> > What bugs can -Wtraditional spot?  IMHO, it warns about practices which 
> > are safe and portable except to _very_ old compilers we don't care about.
> 
> I'm often using -W -Wall to compile my own sources (mostly C++) and trying
> to get them to compile without warnings. There are some noisances of
> course but usually not too much.

We could consider adding -W.  But I suggest to agree on what to do
about -Wtraditional first.