Compiler flags

[spasmous]

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.

[J. J. Farrell]

Re: Compiler flags


spasmous wrote:

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.

There's a chap called Google who can be contacted at
http://www.google.com - he knows all about that sort of thing.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Compiler flags

J. J. Farrell said:

>
spasmous wrote:

>Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
>Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
>compile .c files.

>
There's a chap called Google who can be contacted at
http://www.google.com - he knows all about that sort of thing.

That's like claiming that Mr Yellow Pages knows all about how to clean
drains, bake bread, drive taxis, and issue passports.

Google is a search engine, not an oracle. It doesn't know anything about
Linux, C++, or compiler flags. In fact, it knows little more than which
words appear on which Web sites. An intelligent Googler is well aware that
there is an awful lot of misinformation on the Web, for which Google cannot
reasonably be held responsible. Caveat surfer.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Compiler flags

"spasmous" <spasmous@gmail .comwrites:

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.

<OT>
The usual default compiler on Linux is gcc (it's actually a collection
of compilers for several languages, with a shared backend). There's a
command called "g++" that invokes it as a C compiler. Typically "cc"
and "c++" are installed as aliases for "gcc" and "g++", respectively.

If you want to compile C code, use a C compiler: either "gcc" or "cc",
not "g++", or "c++".

All this is explained in gcc documentation, which you can see by
typing "info gcc" or by doing a Google search for "gcc documentation".
</OT>

If you have any more questions about gcc (that aren't answered by the
documentation), try gnu.gcc.help. If you have questions about Linux,
try one of the many Linux newsgroups, or perhaps comp.unix.progr ammer.
If you have questions about the C language itself, this is the right
place.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[jacob navia]

Re: Compiler flags

spasmous a écrit :

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.
>

You should learn to read the documentation.

Just write:

info gcc
or
man gcc

and the associated documentation will tell you ALL compiler
flags, and what they do.

[spasmous]

Re: Compiler flags


jacob navia wrote:

spasmous a écrit :

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.

>
You should learn to read the documentation.
>
Just write:
>
info gcc
or
man gcc
>
and the associated documentation will tell you ALL compiler
flags, and what they do.

Thanks - I didn't realize c++ was an alias of gcc. Sometimes, you know,
you have to compile someone else's programs on a platform that you
don't know. man c++ was my first try, then google on Linux c++ compiler
flags. Neither produced anything obviously useful.

Next was look for the group with most hits on my google search and post
there. Which is what I did. Sorry your NG is not pure enough for you
guys - but thank you for your suggestions.

[Andrew Poelstra]

Re: Compiler flags

"spasmous" <spasmous@gmail .comwrites:

Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
compile .c files.
>

Assuming you mean gcc, the appropriate flags are here (from Richard
Heathfield at some point in the past):
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -O3

Jacob Navia recommends adding -Wextra for the latest version of gcc.

Rather unfortunately, you have to fix the spacing yourself.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware. net/projects>
To reach me by email, use `apoelstra' at the above domain.
"Do BOTH ends of the cable need to be plugged in?" -Anon.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: Compiler flags

Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@fals e.sitewrites:

"spasmous" <spasmous@gmail .comwrites:
>

>Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags for the
>Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am using it to
>compile .c files.
>>

>
Assuming you mean gcc, the appropriate flags are here (from Richard
Heathfield at some point in the past):
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -O3
>
Jacob Navia recommends adding -Wextra for the latest version of gcc.
>
Rather unfortunately, you have to fix the spacing yourself.

<OT>
-Wextra is a newer name for -W. "info gcc" for details.
</OT>

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Compiler flags

Andrew Poelstra said:

Assuming you mean gcc, the appropriate flags are here (from Richard
Heathfield at some point in the past):
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -O3

No, this set is from "those who know me have no need of my name" - all I did
was pinch it. (And he's been looking for it ever since.)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[CBFalconer]

Re: Compiler flags

Keith Thompson wrote:

Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@fals e.sitewrites:

>"spasmous" <spasmous@gmail .comwrites:
>>

>>Can someone point me to a website that lists the compiler flags
>>for the Linux c++ compiler. Yes, I know it's called c++ but I am
>>using it to compile .c files.

>>
>Assuming you mean gcc, the appropriate flags are here (from Richard
>Heathfield at some point in the past):
>gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
> -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
> -Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
> -Wno-conversion -O3
>>
>Jacob Navia recommends adding -Wextra for the latest version of gcc.
>>
>Rather unfortunately, you have to fix the spacing yourself.

>
<OT>
-Wextra is a newer name for -W. "info gcc" for details.
</OT>

Here is my set, implemented via an alias:

-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.

[Harald van Dijk]

Re: Compiler flags

CBFalconer wrote:

Here is my set, implemented via an alias:
>
-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1

I know you're not the first to recommend it, but please keep in mind
that gcc with the -Wwrite-strings option by design does not conform to
any standard. (Without that option, it still has bugs, but at least it
tries to be conforming.)

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Compiler flags

Harald van D?k said:

CBFalconer wrote:

>Here is my set, implemented via an alias:
>>
>-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1

>
I know you're not the first to recommend it, but please keep in mind
that gcc with the -Wwrite-strings option by design does not conform to
any standard.

Why not? All that -Wwrite-strings does is issue an extra diagnostic message
under certain circumstances, and implementations are allowed to issue
whatever diagnostic messages they like.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Harald van Dijk]

Re: Compiler flags

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Harald van D?k said:

CBFalconer wrote:

Here is my set, implemented via an alias:
>
-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1

I know you're not the first to recommend it, but please keep in mind
that gcc with the -Wwrite-strings option by design does not conform to
any standard.

>
Why not? All that -Wwrite-strings does is issue an extra diagnostic message
under certain circumstances, and implementations are allowed to issue
whatever diagnostic messages they like.

Not if they cause a strictly conforming program such as the below to no
longer compile.

int main(void) {
if(0) ++*"";
}

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Compiler flags

Harald van D?k said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Harald van D?k said:

CBFalconer wrote:
>Here is my set, implemented via an alias:
>>
>-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1
>
I know you're not the first to recommend it, but please keep in mind
that gcc with the -Wwrite-strings option by design does not conform to
any standard.

>>
>Why not? All that -Wwrite-strings does is issue an extra diagnostic
>message under certain circumstances, and implementations are allowed to
>issue whatever diagnostic messages they like.

>
Not if they cause a strictly conforming program such as the below to no
longer compile.
>
int main(void) {
if(0) ++*"";
}

me@here:~/scratchcat foo.c
int main(void) {
if(0) ++*"";
}

me@here:~/scratchmake
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -ffloat-store -O2 -g -pg -c -o foo.o foo.c
foo.c: In function `main':
foo.c:2: warning: increment of read-only location
foo.c:3: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -ffloat-store -O2 -g -pg -o foo foo.o -lm

See? It still compiles.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Harald van Dijk]

Re: Compiler flags

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Harald van D?k said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Harald van D?k said:
CBFalconer wrote:
Here is my set, implemented via an alias:
>
-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wwrite-strings -Wfloat-equal -gstabs+ -O1

I know you're not the first to recommend it, but please keep in mind
that gcc with the -Wwrite-strings option by design does not conform to
any standard.
>
Why not? All that -Wwrite-strings does is issue an extra diagnostic
message under certain circumstances, and implementations are allowed to
issue whatever diagnostic messages they like.

Not if they cause a strictly conforming program such as the below to no
longer compile.

int main(void) {
if(0) ++*"";
}

>
me@here:~/scratchcat foo.c
int main(void) {
if(0) ++*"";
}
>
me@here:~/scratchmake
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -ffloat-store -O2 -g -pg -c -o foo.o foo.c
foo.c: In function `main':
foo.c:2: warning: increment of read-only location
foo.c:3: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align
-Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef
-Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual -Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings
-Wno-conversion -ffloat-store -O2 -g -pg -o foo foo.o -lm
>
See? It still compiles.

Interesting. It doesn't with gcc 3.3.6, 3.4.6, 4.0.3 or 4.1.1.
"increment of read-only location" is an unconditional error in all four
of those versions.