Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:35:42 -0800 (PST) From: John Merryweather Cooper <john_m_cooper@yahoo.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org, John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Cc: ????????? Bill Hacker <askbill@conducive.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tinderbox Message-ID: <543425.44000.qm@web50704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Could not -fno-strict-aliasing be considered as just another WARN level? At least then, there might be some pressure to eliminate strict aliasing warnings as a necessary component to moving to a higher WARN level. jmc ----- Original Message ---- From: David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> To: John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Cc: ????????? Bill Hacker <askbill@conducive.net>; freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:20:28 AM Subject: Re: Tinderbox On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:33:50PM +0000, John Birrell wrote: > Unfortunately the tinderboxes run with custom CFLAGS. > I would change this if I could, but I'm not the first to mention > how frustrating it is. I have never seen a good argument for why > the tinderbox is different from the CVS defaults. One reason is that some of us (at least) have dreams of not compiling with -strict-aliasing. If we have any hope of doing so - the tenderbox needs to build without to keep new warnings of creaping up. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?543425.44000.qm>