Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:40:30 +0100 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r201227 - in head: sbin/comcontrol sbin/mount sbin/mount_msdosfs sbin/mount_nullfs sbin/rcorder usr.bin/find usr.bin/gencat usr.bin/mklocale usr.sbin/config usr.sbin/cpucontrol usr.sbin... Message-ID: <20091230064030.GK64905@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <a78074950912292228w2ca11ba1uc741307bfff49a39@mail.gmail.com> References: <200912292253.nBTMrR5m038869@svn.freebsd.org> <4B3AA7DC.1040606@FreeBSD.org> <20091230062236.GI64905@hoeg.nl> <a78074950912292228w2ca11ba1uc741307bfff49a39@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8886epFSn6hdKcg1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> wrote: > > Hi Gabor, > > > > * Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> I wonder if it would be worth to invent a WARNS=3D7 level, which would > >> be WARNS=3D6 + ANSI. Although ANSI-conformance isn't a -Wfoo flag, > >> which is WARNS for but conforming ANSI means a higher level > >> cleannes, which is demanded, so I think it wouldn't really > >> contradict to the semantics of WARNS. > > > > So far I've been using -Wold-style-definition, which I've been using > > make these changes. I am planning on just adding that to WARNS=3D6, > > considering that almost all the code at WARNS=3D6 builds with this flag > > enabled now. > > > > I'd rather not add a WARNS=3D7, because then I'm afraid almost nobody w= ill > > know about its existence, causing it to be mostly ignored. In an ideal > > world, I think we should get rid of WARNS. We could just enable all -W > > flags by default, except -Werror. That way people would be invited to > > fix the warnings over time. >=20 > Probably leaving -Werror by default is better... Without -Werror I > think there is fewer chance that these issues being noticed. The > point of having -Werror is that it means a build break (at the > developers' local machine, or tinderbox if he or she didn't do a full > universe build), loud enough and can be fixed early rather than > letting them go. Historically we only disable -Werror when major > compiler change, etc. Sure. We should just enable it in Makefile.inc by default, but basically my proposal is to just reduce the entire warnings thing to just two options: - Have all warnings enabled, but not -Werror. - Have all warnings enabled and also -Werror. Where we enable the latter is another discussion. (Almost happy new year), --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://80386.nl/ --8886epFSn6hdKcg1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAks69d4ACgkQ52SDGA2eCwVuWQCfSBkwvys90kOiQge0F+1D8UlH VikAmwShn5gcwekZsXlR6ZUHOTWCYj6s =/bSD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8886epFSn6hdKcg1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091230064030.GK64905>