Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

[Peter Rosin]

Peter Rosin skrev 2011-10-19 18:03:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-10-19 15:59:
>> On Wednesday 19 October 2011, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-09-03 09:41:
>>>> For what concerns this: are you willing to re-submit your patch
>>>> series about AM_PROG_AR to automake-patches? I will try hard to
>>>> look into it, if you are willing to do the required testing and
>>>> to patiently explain to me the details I won't undertand (and
>>>> be warned that there will probably be many of them, since I'm a
>>>> total Windows noob).
>>>
>>> It is not a patch series, it is single patch that adds a new
>>> macro that is modeled after AM_PROG_CC_C_O, some tests to catch
>>> regressions and a plethora of trivial updates to the testsuite.
>>>
>> But then we should also add a new `windows' (or better `msvc'?) warning
>> category, so that we won't force users not interested in MSVC portability
>> to choose between a mandated use of the new macro (which would probably
>> be perceived as gratuitous bloating) and the forsaking of all the
>> portability warnings (which is bad, bad, bad).  I don't care whether
>> this new warning category is introduced by a preparatory patch or by a
>> follow-up one, as long as it's in place before a merge to `maint' takes
>> place.
> 
> I'm not too fond of any of these names. What if some other non-POSIX
> archiver materializes? And it seems philosophically wrong to add something
> as visible as a warning category named after some random 3rd-party-company
> or non-free-tool.
> 
> Perhaps -Wno-portability-extra, -Wno-extra-portability or
> -Wno-extreme-portability?
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I think my favorite so far is -Wextra-portability, and I think
> I would like it to work like this:
> 
> -Wall -> *all* warnings.
> -Wportability -> portability but not extra-portability
> -Wextra-portability -> portability *and* extra-portability
> -Wall -Wno-extra-portability -> Everything but extra-portability.
> -Wall -Wno-portability -> Neither portability nor extra-portability.
> 
> So, the special cases are that turning on extra-portability also
> turns on portability, and turning off portability also turns off
> extra-portability. Is that too complicated? Should it simply be
> two orthogonal categories instead?
> 
> Which, if any, of --gnits, --gnu and --foreign should turn on
> extra-portability?

Here we go. Add did a second patch with the new warning category. I'm sending
the series as replies to this message but will move to automake-patches
instead.

Cheers,
Peter