Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 23:25:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Tai-hwa Liang <avatar@FreeBSD.org>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@crodrigues.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r223854 - head/lib/libstand Message-ID: <DFF856AA-8E60-4FDB-967D-7AA93B6FBFAC@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <4E19321F.1090801@FreeBSD.org> References: <201107080135.p681ZXZu087112@svn.freebsd.org> <CAG=rPVcydzGwfxVS6mbJs6eka52btsf=c5ZtKnkOEgPk-UZSpw@mail.gmail.com> <B8307588-78BB-401B-9CCB-9032727D6EF5@bsdimp.com> <4E19321F.1090801@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 9, 2011, at 11:01 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 15:29, Warner Losh wrote:
>>=20
>> On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:25 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> While not ideal, would it be possible consider setting WARNS to set
>>> different levels
>>> depending on what the value of ${MACHINE_ARCH} is?
>>>=20
>>> Something like:
>>>=20
>>> .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} !=3D "sparc64" (or whatever the correct value =
is)
>>> WARNS ?=3D 0
>>> .else
>>> WARNS ?=3D 2
>>> .endif
>>>=20
>>> This would at least be an attempt to prevent people from adding new
>>> code to libstand which introduce new warnings.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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?
Yes.
> If so, wouldn't that mean that the problems are just going to be
> ignored perpetually?
No. History has shown that they are properly fixed on all platforms in =
the fullness of time.
> 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.
Yes. I understand Craig's theory. The down-side is that people just if =
!mips or if !arm stuff out thinking it is safe to do so, when in fact =
the warnings are telling you about real (or potentially real) bugs on =
the platform in question. So instead of making things safer, you are =
really masking the bugs. Better to fix the warnings on those platforms =
than to pretend that WARNS=3D9 on i386 is "good enough" and that you can =
bump that down to WARNS=3D1 when you encounter something you don't =
understand.
So, it might catch one or two trivial things, but if we do it throughout =
the tree I worry that the very good efforts to raise the warnings for =
all ports will come to a stop and we'll wind up with fewer bug fixes for =
the platforms that complain. Having the low WARNS=3D today motivates =
people to fix stuff...
Warner=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DFF856AA-8E60-4FDB-967D-7AA93B6FBFAC>