Re: junk after endif

Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Chuck Robey wrote:
> 
> CR>in making the environment for my new sparc box, I'm building a new buildworld
> CR>for the sparc, that that's giving me REAMS of useless errors about "junk at
> CR>the end of the line", you know what it is from watching the error come up
> CR>from cpp listings...except that these come from make, not from C code...
> CR>having this come up in the situation I'm in, with zero (besides merely a
> CR>KERNCONF) in the /etc/make.conf, then having this error come up so often it
> CR>obscures the real listing is egregiously crazy.
> CR>
> CR>So, the fix falls into one of these categories:
> CR>
> CR>1) there is a magic incantation I don't know, and don't have time to hunt
> CR>down, that kills this warning in make, and I need to know this, but that's
> CR>not the fix ... the fix is (possibly) to make the default action that this is
> CR>NOT a warning.
> CR>
> CR>2) I know that many folks like to do this to endif's, but it's an warning in
> CR>C, and we should tell the folks who like it "tough" and take them out.
> CR>
> CR>However it's decided, to squish the warning or to squish the tags, it's
> CR>unacceptable to leave those semantically useless warnings laying about,
> CR>hiding real problems.
> 
> These warnings come only if you build with a /usr/share/mk which is not 
> up-to-date and an up-to-date make. (It may also be that you slipped with
> your sources into the small window between the two commits).
> 
> As far as I can see this can legally happen only when building 5.4 or 
> earlier on a current box (I have committed the fix to /usr/share/mk in 
> RELENG_5, but cannot do this because this doesn't seem to fall under the
> committable categories for RELENG_5_*).
> 
> harti

In general, I think that this warning is a bad idea.  It (along with the
NO_FOO wanrings that are also a bad idea) make it very hard to build
prior releases and snapshots from 6-current.  I really cannot see how
this warning benefits anyone or solves a problem; all it does it create
an unneccesary mess.  Yes, building things like I've described here
isn't "supported", but putting up needless roadblocks and making the
definition of "supported" be very narrow makes using FreeBSD very hard.
Please eliminate this warning, or put it under a 'pendatic' flag only.

Scott