From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 11 19:56:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F0A37B490; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D4643E6D; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28967; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:55:56 +1000 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:59:16 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Mike Barcroft Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure In-Reply-To: <20020711180442.G89841@espresso.q9media.com> Message-ID: <20020712123623.K26605-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Bruce Evans writes: > > The setting of NO_WERROR belongs in [BTX]MAKE if anywhere. This is > > already done for [BX]MAKE but not for TMAKE. However, I don't like > > turning off warnings for any of these. Warnings for these stages may > > be even more important and should be less likely than warnings for > > building the final world, since it is very important for basic tools > > to be correct and for their source to be careful about portabilty > > issues. > > Well, unfortunately I don't think we can depend on older compilers > having correct warnings. In PR 40382, it would seem the 4.5 -> HEAD > upgrade path is broken because of fatal warnings. A good workaround The problem in that PR seems to be just the current breakage of __printf0like. > for that problem might be specifying NO_WERROR for the entire build, > in which case -Werror becomes useless anyway. So we might just as > well disable early fatal warnings and hope that developers can catch > most of the bugs later on in the build. It's true that the host compiler might emit spurious warnings. But I think it's worth checking new ones (for new hosts and especially for new sources) carefully. I won't argue this point strongly. We mostly avoid seeing problems by not enabling many warnings (we don't set WARNS for cc, and we set it to to for binutils). > > This also has some style bugs :). Any setting of NO_WERROR turns it on, > > so setting it to different spellings of boolean true is just confusing. > > It is set correctly for for [BX]MAKE. > > Oh, that's a much nicer location. :) I think only BMAKE has > NO_WERROR defined, not XMAKE. XMAKE is based on BMAKE :). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message