addition of -Wall to default flags (redhat-rpm-config-8.0.38-1)

[Nicholas Miell]

On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 16:55 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Nicholas Miell wrote:
> > I'd argue that any upstream package which includes -Werror by default is
> > broken, considering how often gcc warnings change. 
> 
> And I argue that we apparently must come to a state where -Werror is
> enabled automatically.  The current state, aggravated by adding -Wall,
> is that warnings are ignored.  The result: bugs the compiler finds are
> no fixed.  I even found one case where the _FORTIFY_SOURCE magic found a
> buffer overflow and the maintainer hasn't seen it.
> 
> It is crucial that packages are changed to have zero warnings.
> Otherwise these bugs remain unnoticed since people think warnings are OK
> and don't care.   The "apparent" part is that using -Werror is the only
> way to do this.  Without enforcement people _think_ there are more
> important things to do than fixing warnings.
> 
> Yes, it might mean that an update to a new gcc version means required
> changes.  But guess what?  Whenever a warning pops up there is likely a
> good reason for it and it is worthwhile spending time on it.  Just like
> all these signed vs unsigned warnings in gcc 4.  They almost all the
> time warrant looking at the code.

Nothing stops you from doing internal builds with -Werror and then
fixing all the warnings before you make a release.

However, when you ship software that won't compile, your end users are
either going to remove -Werror and rebuild or they're going to switch to
something that works out-of-the-metaphorical-box. You've gained nothing.

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell at comcast.net>