silent rules and warnings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

silent rules and warnings

John W. Eaton
Administrator
I checked in a series of changes that reduced the number of warnings in
the build.  For my build on a Debian system, I only see a few warnings
now.  I'd like to eliminate all of them, but there are a few from code
generated by flex that I see no easy way to eliminate.  In any case, my
hope is that we can prevent any new warnings from appearing and keep the
build clean.

I also checked in a change to make the --enable-silent-rules configure
option much more useful.  Perhaps we should enable this by default?  The
terse output of silent rules used to annoy me because I never seemed to
be able to figure out how to get the full command output when it was
needed for debugging.  But with Makefiles generated by automake, it is
as simple as passing V=1 to make.  So I don't really see a downside of
enabling silent rules by default for all builds.  The big positive
benefit for me is that warnings and errors are much more visible and it
will be more obvious when some code is added that accidentally produces
a warning.

Is there any objection to enabling silent rules by default?

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: silent rules and warnings

Mike Miller
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 17:32:33 -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:

> I checked in a series of changes that reduced the number of warnings in the
> build.  For my build on a Debian system, I only see a few warnings now.  I'd
> like to eliminate all of them, but there are a few from code generated by
> flex that I see no easy way to eliminate.  In any case, my hope is that we
> can prevent any new warnings from appearing and keep the build clean.
>
> I also checked in a change to make the --enable-silent-rules configure
> option much more useful.  Perhaps we should enable this by default?  The
> terse output of silent rules used to annoy me because I never seemed to be
> able to figure out how to get the full command output when it was needed for
> debugging.  But with Makefiles generated by automake, it is as simple as
> passing V=1 to make.  So I don't really see a downside of enabling silent
> rules by default for all builds.  The big positive benefit for me is that
> warnings and errors are much more visible and it will be more obvious when
> some code is added that accidentally produces a warning.
>
> Is there any objection to enabling silent rules by default?

Yes please! :) I always build with V=0 for that same reason (and
looking forward to trying the build with your latest changes).

I doubt there's anything we could do about the warnings from
flex-generated code. However, to silence those warnings specifically
we could drop a #pragma at the top of the generated file to disable
the old-style-cast or unused-parameter or whichever warnings trigger
for that one file.

--
mike

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: silent rules and warnings

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 02/20/2015 07:27 PM, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 17:32:33 -0500, John W. Eaton wrote:

>> Is there any objection to enabling silent rules by default?
>
> Yes please! :) I always build with V=0 for that same reason (and
> looking forward to trying the build with your latest changes).
>
> I doubt there's anything we could do about the warnings from
> flex-generated code. However, to silence those warnings specifically
> we could drop a #pragma at the top of the generated file to disable
> the old-style-cast or unused-parameter or whichever warnings trigger
> for that one file.

OK, I went ahead and enabled silent rules by default.  After thinking
about it a bit, I don't see anything negative about doing it and it's
easy to undo if it somehow turns out to cause trouble.

jwe