From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 17 13:07:40 2003 Return-Path: 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 608D837B401 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuebingen.mpg.de (connect.tuebingen.mpg.de [192.124.26.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1925543FBD for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter.kadau@tuebingen.mpg.de) Received: from [217.84.141.90] ([217.84.141.90] verified) by tuebingen.mpg.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP id 4965907; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:07:37 +0200 From: Peter Kadau To: Michael Nottebrock In-Reply-To: <200307162209.22237.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <1058366903.81198.18.camel@skeeve> <20030716110743.1e44c8e0.ak03@gte.com> <200307162209.22237.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1058472457.12586.30.camel@straycat> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 17 Jul 2003 22:07:37 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc-3.3 issues X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 20:07:40 -0000 Hi ! > > s/gcc-3.3/ports/ issues and we are in agreement. alright, `port compile issues raised with the adoption of gcc-3.3' > > Patches to fix broken ports are welcome. Looking at AbiWord2 I suspect this has to be pushed upstream in some cases. OK, here is a - ahem - patch for aspell: --- prog/checker_string.hpp.orig Tue Sep 24 03:34:52 2002 +++ prog/checker_string.hpp Thu Jul 17 20:02:58 2003 @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ // it at http://www.gnu.org/. #include +#include #include "aspell.h" It works on my colleague's and my current and my stable. But maybe it's not the right way (tm) (to 'do-it) :-) But should I post that on -ports, -current or send it to the ports maintainer ? I'd rather avoid tracking -ports... > Is something like this expected, i.e., certain combinations of -W* and > -pedantic to produce errors when they didn't before? Yes, though -ansi and -pedantic are not that troublesome I think. A real killer is -Werror. But -W* is not the only source of compile errors - see above. Cheers Peter