Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 09:07:03 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU, terry@lambert.org Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GNU binutils port Message-ID: <199604242307.JAA25542@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > They are only warnings and many would go away if less warnings were enabled. >> > There would be many more if more were enabled. For the LINT kernel built on >> > Apr 6, the warning counts were: >> > >> > compiler warnings (lines) >> > -------- -------- >> > cc 74 >> > cc -Wall 2394 >> > gcc-2.7.2 4694 >> > >> >> Oh dear.... I can't beleive you're saying this, "They are only warnings". >> >> To me, it has, "My code sucks and I don't care." written all over It's not my code :-). The point is that another 50000 or so lines of warnings could easily be produced by enabling enough warnings. I've already fixed 5000-10000 lines of warnings (10-20 of which were for real bugs on the i386) after enabling prototype warnings and don't feel like looking for more now. >I really doubt sizeof(void *) != sizeof(??? *) any time soon. It happens every day, but not on the i386. >Anyone here planning on porting to a platform with split I and D? The i386 supports it fine. >The compiler is being unbearably anal for most of those 4694 warnings. >The language didn't change to get those extra 2300 warnings, the compiler >did. Actually, only the compiler options changed. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604242307.JAA25542>