From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OSkne-0003mc-KG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:53:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2706AE083E; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:53:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E48E0808 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565901B4064 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:52:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.959 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.959 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXUf2oAIeRab for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988511B4047 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:52:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OSknJ-0007ce-J4 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:52:41 +0200 Received: from athedsl-373417.home.otenet.gr ([79.131.10.167]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:52:41 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-373417.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:52:41 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: FYI: Rules for distro-friendly packages Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:52:42 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: <20100625201738.GA4789@nibiru.local> <4C252C8E.8020408@gentoo.org> <20100626193915.GD4789@nibiru.local> <20100626205001.365b51cb@snowcone> <20100626195733.GF4789@nibiru.local> <20100626211254.002784d4@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-373417.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100626 Thunderbird/3.1 In-Reply-To: <20100626211254.002784d4@snowcone> X-Archives-Salt: d8e938d6-b670-4a63-b244-adefd6098388 X-Archives-Hash: d21499a07ea0429acfced291596f5470 On 06/26/2010 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:57:33 +0200 > Enrico Weigelt wrote: >>> Uhm. No. Certain compilers will give you warnings for f(g(a), g(b)) >>> if you -Wall. >> >> Warn on what exactly ? > > That f's arguments are evaluated in an unspecified order. > >> Which compilers do that ? > > For all you know, gcc 4.7. > > New gcc releases regularly issue lots of new warnings for correct code, > particularly with -Wall. Other compilers are even worse. Did it actually occur to anyone that warnings are not errors? You can have them for correct code. A warning means you might want to look at the code to check whether there's some real error there. It doesn't mean the code is broken.