Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:34:04 +0200 (SAT) From: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -Werror Message-ID: <199901192134.XAA19822@ceia.nordier.com> In-Reply-To: <199901192108.IAA05382@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Jan 20, 99 08:08:18 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 looking for clarity, rather than disputing the wisdom of any group decision (assuming there has been a group decision): there doesn't seem to be anything in style(9) about this. Though, if the matter is still undecided, it's probably worth noting that C experts as eminent as P.J. Plauger have gone on record as regarding a "C compiler warnings as errors" policy as unworkable. -- 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?199901192134.XAA19822>