From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 10 05:01:20 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13EC106564A; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:01:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 65-241-43-4.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B1B1500E8; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E19321F.1090801@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:01:19 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110706 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh References: <201107080135.p681ZXZu087112@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tai-hwa Liang , Craig Rodrigues , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r223854 - head/lib/libstand X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:01:20 -0000 On 07/08/2011 15:29, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:25 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While not ideal, would it be possible consider setting WARNS to set >> different levels >> depending on what the value of ${MACHINE_ARCH} is? >> >> Something like: >> >> .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} != "sparc64" (or whatever the correct value is) >> WARNS ?= 0 >> .else >> WARNS ?= 2 >> .endif >> >> This would at least be an attempt to prevent people from adding new >> code to libstand which introduce new warnings. > > We've avoided this in the tree, and I'd urge against it. It gives a > false sense of security and tends to make problems linger. I'd like to > strongly argue against it. If I'm missing something here, feel free to correct me. But what you seem to be saying is that WARNS should be kept down to the LCD, is that right? If so, wouldn't that mean that the problems are just going to be ignored perpetually? ISTM that what Craig is proposing gives us the benefits of noticing breakage faster at higher WARNS levels for those arches that support them, while allowing interested folks to pick up the work on the less-well-supported arches as time allows. I don't see a downside to that. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/