Re: [rfc] removing/conditionalising WERROR= in Makefiles

On Tue Dec 27 11, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Philip Paeps wrote:
> 
> > On 2011-12-26 10:10:40 (+0000), Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> i grep'ed through src/sys and found several places where WERROR= was set in
> >> order to get rid of the default -Werror setting. i tried to remove those
> >> WERROR= overrides from any Makefile, where doing so did not break tinderbox.
> >> 
> >> in those cases, where it couldn't be completely removed, i added conditions to
> >> only set WERROR= for the particular achitecture or compiler, where tinderbox
> >> did not suceed without the WERROR=.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to set WARNS=x rather than WERROR=?  WERROR= says "this
> > code has bugs, it breaks tinderbox" whereas WARNS=x says "this code has the
> > following kind of bugs which break tinderbox".
> 
> Agreed...

in this case it would have to be WARNS=1 then, because anything > 1 will enable
-Wall, which is the warning that breaks sys/modules/ie.

cheers.
alex

> 
> > Possibly wrapped in an architecture-test where appropriate.
> 
> Not so much...  When you make architecture-specific tests, experience has shown that we don't fix bugs and they languish for a long time.  Many times, these warnings are real.  Sadly, we've found no way to tag the ones that aren't real yet as safe to ignore...
> 
> Warner
> 
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"