Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:30:15 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG (Eivind Eklund) Cc: rnordier@nordier.com, bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -Werror Message-ID: <199901192330.BAA21245@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <19990119232309.B52012@bitbox.follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Jan 19, 99 11:23:10 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: > > Bruce Evans wrote: > > > > > People are already committing code that should be caught by -Werror: > > > > > > ../../netinet/if_ether.c: In function `arpresolve': ../../netinet/if_ether.c:330: warning: `la' might be used uninitialized in this function > > > `la' _is_ used uninitialized in this function. > > > > Last I heard, folks intent on establishing -Werror as a default > > option were being threatened with mayhem or worse. > > > > Is the point that we are nevertheless required to act "as if", at > > least as far as new code is concerned? > > I'm planning on keeping compiling at least one of my trees with > -Werror. This mean that the warnings will be fixed at _some_ level - > either only locally in my tree, or globally if reasonable. I'm also > thinking of whether an automated notifier would be useful (with Cc: to > jkh, of course, as it was jkh that vetoed adding it to bsd.kern.mk ;-) Nice touch. :) I've a number of static checkers here myself that I use fairly regularly; so I'm not necessarily set against the idea of enforcing -Werror. These stylistic issues do tend to be divisive, though, so it seemed worth checking whether some final policy decision had been reached. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901192330.BAA21245>