From nobody Thu Dec 2 05:28:36 2021 X-Original-To: dev-commits-ports-main@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C4518B482D; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:28:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mx2.catspoiler.org (mx2.catspoiler.org [IPv6:2607:f740:16::d18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "amnesiac", Issuer "amnesiac" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4J4PdG4Fx7z4fRr; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:28:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received-SPF: pass (mx2.catspoiler.org: 76.212.85.177 is whitelisted) receiver=mx2.catspoiler.org; client-ip=76.212.85.177; helo=gw.catspoiler.org; envelope-from=truckman@FreeBSD.org; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10; Received: from gw.catspoiler.org ([76.212.85.177]) by mx2.catspoiler.org (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1B25SfGt090128 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:28:42 GMT (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received-SPF: pass (gw.catspoiler.org: 192.168.101.2 is whitelisted) receiver=gw.catspoiler.org; client-ip=192.168.101.2; helo=mousie.catspoiler.org; envelope-from=truckman@FreeBSD.org; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10; Received: from mousie.catspoiler.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1B25San0002278 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:28:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 21:28:36 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis Subject: Re: git: b8c4bfe660b3 - main - sysutils/reptyr: Address LLVM 13 build failure To: Cy Schubert cc: Alexey Dokuchaev , Kubilay Kocak , Cy Schubert , ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Message-ID: References: <202112020054.1B20sZXk040844@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <202112020412.1B24CA8G016980@slippy.cwsent.com> List-Id: Commits to the main branch of the FreeBSD ports repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-ports-main List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-Disposition: INLINE X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4J4PdG4Fx7z4fRr X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2607:f740:16::d18 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of truckman@FreeBSD.org) smtp.mailfrom=truckman@FreeBSD.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.94 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[truckman]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[FreeBSD.org]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(1.00)[1.000]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.962]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:2607:f740:16::/48, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 1 Dec, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message , Alexey Dokuchaev writes: >> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 12:05:46PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> > On 2/12/2021 11:54 am, Cy Schubert wrote: >> > > commit b8c4bfe660b373862165a58514f270a51e77e147 >> > > >> > > sysutils/reptyr: Address LLVM 13 build failure >> > > ... >> > > 2 errors generated. >> > >> > Ports usually shouldn't use -Werror and people are strongly encouraged >> > to add -Wno-error >> >> On the other hand, every project really should enable -Werror so the >> compiler catches as much as it can for you. Having it enabled during >> development is a must, having it enabled in releases is arguable as >> it might bring extra burden to maintainer, but it does help to catch >> bugs in the environment original developer has no access to, so no, >> we don't strongly encourage -Wno-error when specific warnings can be >> scoped as it helps to catch other warnings in the future. Now they >> will likely went unnoticed, ergo unreported and unfixed. > > Then it behooves port maintainers to upstream patches whenever possible. > > This has been fixed using a proper patch and a pull request has been > submitted to our upstream. I should have done this from the get-go. This causes me some discomfort. I'm definitely onboard with working with upstream. My concern with local patches is that they can potentially introduce bugs, and now you are running code that has diverged from the presumably battle-tested upstream code. In one particular case, I'm working with some really crufty old C code that's been abandoned for quite some time. Compiling it throws tons of errors about things that were mentioned favorably in the original K&R C book. The code badly needs cleanup, much of which look like it is fairly mechanical, but it would be too easy to introduce bugs and there is no test harness that I'm aware of to do a thorough test of the updated code. Another case is a large C++ project where many of the errors are due to an API problem in a base class that is used by many other classes, some of which override the problematic method. Fixing the API issue in the base class ripples out to *many* other places and doing an adequate job of testing looks like a lot of work.