On tis, 2009-12-15 at 16:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I have also tried in the past to pass -Werror through configure, but
> > that caused too many problems.
>
> Is it your opinion that we shouldn't bother fixing this particular
> test? I was on the fence about it myself. I don't want to promise
> that configuring with -Werror will work, now or in the future; but
> making this one test safe doesn't seem too onerous.
I don't mind making this one test more correct, although I haven't fully
verified the particular details of the proposed change.
But after checking again now, passing -Werror through configure in a
sane way appears impossible and futile. Pretty much all the
compile-and-link tests for functions, e.g., cbrt, memmove, snprintf, (as
opposed to the usual link-only tests) fail because of prototype
mismatches, because configure just declares functions
char memmove ();
independent of the correct call signature.
There are a few other problems as well.
You could perhaps get away with it if you don't pass any other warning
options into configure, but then what warnings is it supposed to error
about?
So to summarize, this is just a bad idea. Creating a less obscure way
to use -Werror might be worthwhile, though.
