3 ms·

It's also iffy tbh. that the compilation check functionality: - doesn't force users to differentiate between syntax errors and other errors (e.g. symbols not f

It's also iffy tbh. that the compilation check functionality: - doesn't force users to differentiate between syntax errors and other errors (e.g. symbols not found). Partially you can't even make it work properly if you want due to C macros. - it seems sensible, tbh. if "does compile" checks for compatibility seems sensible then there is so much wrong with the ecosystem in so many ways

mysidia 3y ago
It's standard autoconf stuff, BUT... the right thing to do for a security option should be to throw an error at the configure stage If the Option is requested but can't be supported, And not to silently turn it off. That is because a human should have to Look at the build and manually make the decision to switch off a security feature from the build.
- lazide 3y ago
  Autocomf output is so incredibly noisy though, still long odds someone would notice anytime soon.
  - dullcrisp 3y ago
    If you break the build they’ll notice
    - lazide 3y ago
      Good thing they disabled the check that would have broken the build/tests in this case eh?
BenFrantzDale 3y ago
Agreed. I just opened https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/25846 https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/25846 although I have no idea how hard it is to address this sort of issue robustly.