<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 14, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Eric Christopher <<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com">echristo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Sure, but I just don't see that providing much value. The point of adding a warning was to help catch things like typos in the sysroot path. What are the chances that someone is going to mis-type the sysroot and also specify -Wmissing-sysroot? I'm assuming that typos are most likely to come up when someone is running the compiler by hand, rather than from a makefile. I suppose that it could still help when a makefile specifies an SDK that is not currently installed. I'm just not convinced that's worth the effort of adding and maintaining a new warning, but I'm open to being convinced.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">My only concerns are false positives in fairly standard use cases. I think the warning could be useful when debugging problems and if you know you aren't in the use cases that might give a false positive you can turn it on by default (perhaps with a new umbrella?) but false positives are bad for everyone :)</div>
</blockquote><br></div><div>In what reality is "early in a system bootstrap" a fairly standard use case?</div><div><br></div><div>John.</div><br></body></html>