On Tue Dec 27 11, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Philip Paeps wrote: > > > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+0000), Alexander Best <arundel_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > >> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in > >> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those > >> WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where doing so did not break tinderbox. > >> > >> in those cases, where it couldn't be completely removed, i added conditions to > >> only set WERROR= for the particular achitecture or compiler, where tinderbox > >> did not suceed without the WERROR=. > > > > Wouldn't it be better to set WARNS=x rather than WERROR=? WERROR= says "this > > code has bugs, it breaks tinderbox" whereas WARNS=x says "this code has the > > following kind of bugs which break tinderbox". > > Agreed... in this case it would have to be WARNS=1 then, because anything > 1 will enable -Wall, which is the warning that breaks sys/modules/ie. cheers. alex > > > Possibly wrapped in an architecture-test where appropriate. > > Not so much... When you make architecture-specific tests, experience has shown that we don't fix bugs and they languish for a long time. Many times, these warnings are real. Sadly, we've found no way to tag the ones that aren't real yet as safe to ignore... > > Warner >Received on Tue Dec 27 2011 - 21:54:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC