Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 23:59:21 +0100 From: Ulf Lilleengen <lulf@kerneled.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Contributing to FreeBSD list of things todo Message-ID: <20051107225921.GA1623@samfundet.no> In-Reply-To: <20051101225848.GB20543@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <a8b370910511011430v38ed6fe4xdd8b5ff5dec80939@mail.gmail.com> <20051101225848.GB20543@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:58:48PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:30:00PM -0600, Ben Siemon wrote: > > I have a suggestion for things dev people could do to help out with > > code already done. I noticed the suggestion for compiling with -Wall > > enabled. Would it serve any purpose to compile the sources with -ansi > > and or -pedantic as well? I am fairly new to FreeBSD so forgive me if > > this has alread been addressed. > > I think the todo list is dated in this area. We now compile many files > with large sets of warning flags via the WARNS variable in Makefiles. > It is useful to expand the coverage in this area, but it's not all that > trivial. It's often fairly easy to make the warning go away without > fixing the real problem the warning represented. This means that far > too many patches to raise warning levels are useless and waste developer > time. There's also the fact that such changes need to be tested on > multiple architectures because certain warnings are platform specfic. > At the least testing is needed on i386, alpha, and sparc. > I've seen an effort to remove these warnings by setting WARNS?=6 . Would this be preferable to work on, on freebsd as well? Ofcourse testing on most architectures. -- Ulf Lilleengen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051107225921.GA1623>