Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:05:35 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Cc: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG, rnordier@nordier.com, fenner@parc.xerox.com, bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -Werror Message-ID: <199901201505.RAA03282@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <199901201459.WAA20451@spinner.netplex.com.au> from Peter Wemm at "Jan 20, 99 10:59:26 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Eivind Eklund wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 04:31:29PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote:
> > > but rewriting to eliminate the errors would violate a style(9)
> > > guideline (unnecessary parentheses). There's an awful lot of BSD
> > > code like this, that could cause huge {Net,Open}BSD diffs if
> > > rewritten.
> >
> > NetBSD and OpenBSD does, AFAIK, compile their kernel with -Wall
> > -Werror.
>
> I'm pretty sure I saw that NetBSD also do something like this for large
> chunks of userland too. If I recall correctly (I don't have the source
> handy), they have bsd.*.mk hook to enable tree based (Makefile.inc)
> setting of the flags, and allowing overrides on a per directory basis as
> well.
Yes, looking at a bit of OpenBSD code, they do seem to have made
sweeping changes to eliminate the quoted warnings.
> Re: style(9).. Some argue that parentheses to aid readability are
> not "unnecessary". style(9) says "Don't add braces that aren't
> necessary." - it doesn't say ".. for correct compilation". Having code
> clear and readable is "necessary". :-)
It actually says, "Don't use parentheses unless they're required for
precedence, or the statement is really confusing without them." :)
>
> > Eivind.
>
> Cheers,
> -Peter
>
>
--
Robert Nordier
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901201505.RAA03282>