Re: Attempt to beautify compilation

[Dan Pascu <dan (at) ag (dash) projects (dot) com>]

On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> Dan Pascu wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 November 2008, Dan Pascu wrote:
> >> So I'm not sure if this feature will outweight its side effects.
> >
> > As a note, if the quiet compilation would be able to display the
> > command used to compile a file when there is an error compiling it,
> > then it would probably outweight the issue I mentioned before.
>
> Thanks for your comments. I agree with them and I still have to study
> what happens when something miscompiles.
>
> But the idea really is that this option would be used by a developer,
> which can handle the errors. But if he/she knows that everything
> compiles cleanly at some point, he/she can switch off the verbose
> messages and pay more attention to what _changes_ after hacking
> something.

I guess it's a matter of taste. I never felt any need to disable the 
verbose compilation. Maybe also because the editor I use is able to 
capture the compile errors and allows me to jump between them (with F11 
and F12), so I guess I never payed much attention to the compilation 
output other than to spot the errors, which I got easily anyway.

>
> When I am compiling wmaker it is a pain to see gcc warnings, and this
> issue goes away by enabling a quiet compilation because they really
> stand out that way.

Hiding warnings this way is a bad idea. It's better to see them and fix 
them, because they may mean potential problems in your code.

> I mean, I compile the linux kernel and git itself _very_ frequently
> to help catching up regressions etc. And those two projects have
> a _very_ clean compilation, and somehow I became used to it and
> wanted something similar with wmaker. But maybe that is just me :-)


-- 
Dan


-- 
To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscribe@lists.windowmaker.info.