Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:52:19 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Shawn Hargreaves <ShawnH AT Probe DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Subject: Re: Announce: Allegro 3.1
In-Reply-To: <8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE33CA38F@probe-2.Acclaim-Euro.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990107085155.16723B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


On Wed, 6 Jan 1999, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

> The gcc docs seem to imply that the same effect as -Wall can be 
> obtained by manually listing all the individual options: do you 
> happen to know if this is accurate, or if -Wall has any other 
> effects that will not be duplicated this way?

AFAIK, -Wall is nothing more than the individual switches is stands
for.

> If possible, one 
> solution might be to use many specific switches instead of the 
> one generic option, although I don't think the same thing would 
> apply to -W complaints (I can't see any way to manually enable 
> those diagnostics).

I think a better idea is to have the default target not use -W
-Werror, and maybe not even -Wall.  Ordinary users who build Allegro
doesn't will only become confused if they see any warnings.