Re: LuaBitOp: Cant require "bit=>./bit.so: undefined symbol: luaopen_bit

[Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:22:24PM +0000, David Given wrote:
> Incidentally, the -Werror option on its own upgrades (nearly) *all*
> warnings to errors. This can be useful, but never release code with this
> enabled! Because the C spec does *not* specify what warnings the
> compiler can produce, which means different compilers produce different
> warnings, which means that if you treat them as errors you run the risk
> of your code failing to compile if your user doesn't use the same
> compiler you use...

I'm in two minds about this.  If it's some mission-critical software, I
*do* want to have a massive red flag if it turns out a newer compiler
has spotted a problem caused by some ambiguity that the previous one did
not before letting it lose on my precious data because the new compiler
interprets it differently.

B.