Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:28:44 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [rfc] removing/conditionalising WERROR= in Makefiles Message-ID: <8DD9BAA5-78E0-491A-9E4E-6915B0A9FBAA@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20111227010449.GA6244@twoflower.paeps.cx> References: <20111226101040.GA6361@freebsd.org> <20111227010449.GA6244@twoflower.paeps.cx>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Philip Paeps wrote: > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+0000), Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: >> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in >> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those >> WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where doing so did not break tinderbox. >> >> in those cases, where it couldn't be completely removed, i added conditions to >> only set WERROR= for the particular achitecture or compiler, where tinderbox >> did not suceed without the WERROR=. > > Wouldn't it be better to set WARNS=x rather than WERROR=? WERROR= says "this > code has bugs, it breaks tinderbox" whereas WARNS=x says "this code has the > following kind of bugs which break tinderbox". Agreed... > Possibly wrapped in an architecture-test where appropriate. Not so much... When you make architecture-specific tests, experience has shown that we don't fix bugs and they languish for a long time. Many times, these warnings are real. Sadly, we've found no way to tag the ones that aren't real yet as safe to ignore... Warnerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8DD9BAA5-78E0-491A-9E4E-6915B0A9FBAA>