Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 18:07:52 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Not committing WARNS settings... Message-ID: <200202061807.g16I7ws27754@greenpeace.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <20020206092057.D96921@dragon.nuxi.com> ; from "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> "Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:20:57 PST." References: <20020206092057.D96921@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this > > time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great > > need to let warnings "hang out", and in an ideal world I see an need > > for (new) warnings to break things. I see no need for warnings to > > hold back a project as important as GCC3, and NO_WERROR is the > > cleanest solution. > > > > I do not expect others to agree with (or like) this. > > I do not. Right. I am about to commit a WARNS?= backout in anticipation of your GCC3 work. While I believe we should be going the other way, you are the (un)lucky fellow doing the hard work, so I'll defer. In the meanwhile we shal continue to disagree on a more theoretical level. OK? :-) M -- o Mark Murray \_ FreeBSD Services Limited O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn 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?200202061807.g16I7ws27754>