From owner-cvs-all  Sat Dec 29  6:21:40 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 34C2037B41E; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 06:21:35 -0800 (PST)
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 BAA25328;
	Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:21:23 +1100
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 01:21:29 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender:  <bde@gamplex.bde.org>
To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>
Cc: "David E. O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>,
	<cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.sys.mk
In-Reply-To: <20011229125025.A44606@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <20011230011102.L5086-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <cvs-all.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20cvs-all>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20cvs-all>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, David Malone wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 10:02:15PM -0800, David E. O'Brien wrote:
> > obrien      2001/12/14 22:02:15 PST
> >
> >   Modified files:
> >     share/mk             bsd.sys.mk
> >   Log:
> >   Add some granularity to the WARNS levels.
> >   1:  add -Werror
> >   2:  -Wall [only], as this is the most used warnings setting by developers
> >   3:  our old `1'
> >   4:  our old `2'
>
> WARNS=4 doesn't seem to be the same as WARNS=2 used to be, because
> -Wno-uninitialized isn't getting added at the end of the warnings
> flags and so -Wuninitialized is still producing false positives.
> Could someone review the patch below?

Doesn't it work where it already is, since it is to cancel the
-Wuninitialized provied by -Wall?

> Also, if we fiddle further with the meaning of WARNS levels, it may
> make sense to number them as if we were basic programmers?

Do mean to number them with gaps of 10 as in some dialects of BASIC?
Nah, line limbers are braindamaged and level numbers are no better,
with or without gaps.  Level numbers are slightly more braindamaged
because they are distributed and there is no RENUM command to fix them.
There should be logical partially ordered sets of warnings that don't
move when you add new ones.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message