Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 11:12:38 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Not committing WARNS settings... Message-ID: <200202061112.g16BCis55559@greenpeace.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpwuxq7upy.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> ; from Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> "06 Feb 2002 11:47:21 %2B0100." References: <xzpwuxq7upy.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> John Hay <jhay@icomtek.csir.co.za> writes: > > Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people > > consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine > > exercise? For instance the one "make release" will exercise? The > > WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks "make release" because > > telnetd is then compiled, but it isn't warning free. > > This is a good reason why non-zero WARNS should only be set in leaf > Makefiles. 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. 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?200202061112.g16BCis55559>