Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:51:55 +0200 From: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Big Makefile patch for WARNS settings Message-ID: <4AD30A4B.7060409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8663aksy43.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20091011145021.GG36937@acme.spoerlein.net> <20091011170918.GU71731@hoeg.nl> <4AD2FD6E.8090208@FreeBSD.org> <8663aksy43.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav escribió: > Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> What I noticed is that the patch sets WARNS?=0 for a lot of utilities, >> which actually have higher WARNS-compliance. >> > > WARNS level 0 is the current default. All Ulrich's patch does is > reverse the logic so that WARNS is 6 by default and anything that didn't > already set WARNS explicitly sets it to 0, so the actual value of WARNS > in each Makefile is the same as before. This is orthogonal to actually > fixing whatever doesn't currently build at a higher WARNS level. > Yep, I understand that but what I'm saying is that once we are dealing with such a big patch, it would be nice to elaborate the highest WARNS level of each utility and set them accordingly, which doesn't require too much extra effort as opposed to making all of them WARNS=6 compliant. -- Gabor Kovesdan FreeBSD Volunteer EMAIL: gabor@FreeBSD.org .:|:. gabor@kovesdan.org WEB: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~gabor .:|:. http://kovesdan.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AD30A4B.7060409>