Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]

[Ikke <eikke eikke com>]

> You didn't even read that bug report, obviously!
Actually, I did read it, which does not imply I agree with the final
conclusion.
> 
> But beyond that '-ansi -pedantic' have a really wrong meaning. They
> mean, to both GCC and the compiler:
> 
>  Turn off all extensions beyond the C89 standard
Which implies the code will compile with almost C every compiler around.
I'm not saying these flags should be used in release builds...
> 
> GLib has a lot of intelligence to detect and use features and extensions
> when available and to replace them when not available. GCC suddenly
> claiming it doesn't know about extensions that it *does* know about
> will, not surprisingly, cause things to break.
Of course you should be using C99 and other extensions when the target
host supports these. But this doesn't take away the fact the code should
also compile on hosts that do not support these extensions. I guess
nowadays all tinderbox builds are done on GCC 3.3/3.4/4.0 platforms?
> 
> Sometimes you can hack around this, but it's generally just stupid to
> waste time doing so.

I'll STFU in this discussion from now on, appareantly I haven't got the
knowledge or I'm not in the correct position to spread around my
thoughts.

G'night,

Ikke