From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 6 17:39:12 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F191065670; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:39:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B652B8FC20; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:39:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA21183; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:39:09 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <498C75BD.5040205@icyb.net.ua> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:39:09 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090110) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org References: <4989EA2A.6050601@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4989EA2A.6050601@icyb.net.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: NO_WERROR vs kernel builds X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:39:13 -0000 on 04/02/2009 21:19 Andriy Gapon said the following: > It seems that kernel builds ignore NO_WERROR. > Is this on purpose or by accident? > > I think that this happens because of the following lines in > sys/conf/kern.pre.mk: > > .if ${CC} != "icc" > CFLAGS+= -fno-common -finline-limit=${INLINE_LIMIT} > CFLAGS+= --param inline-unit-growth=100 > CFLAGS+= --param large-function-growth=1000 > .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "amd64" || ${MACHINE} == "i386" || \ > ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "ia64" || ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "powerpc" || \ > ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "sparc64" > WERROR?= -Werror > .endif > .endif > > I had to specify WERROR= on make's command line to catch a certain kind > of warnings in bulk instead of one by one. This was not obvious. > Can anybody please explain or comment (or rub my nose into it)? -- Andriy Gapon