On 09/13/2018 07:36 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> There is also the case where we want these warnings to block >>> installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great. >> >> I really disagree with that. So many devs have already said multiple >> times in this thread that "-Werror" is only turning existing warnings >> into fatal errors but "-Werror" itself doesn't add any new checks and >> more often requires "-O3" to be useful. > The way that compilers work is that the warnings are generated in the front > end while the optimization level affects the backend. That means that -O3 has > no effect on the code that does error generation. This remark about -O3 being > needed to make -Werror useful is just plain wrong. I had a discussion off list about this. My remarks on this were incorrect. However, I strongly disagree that -O3 is necessary for diagnostics to be useful. >> So let's turn this around: Please show us a *real* case within Gentoo >> where "-Werror" prevented a real problem which wouldn't otherwise being >> noticed. E.g. show us a package which was merged on user's system, >> replacing a working previous version of that package causing *real* >> problems which could have been prevented if package would have set >> "-Werror". >> >> Unless you can do that we don't really need to discuss this. Simply >> because everyone interested in "-Werror" *can* set that flag via CFLAGS, >> even just per package, whereas the majority, not interested in this, >> cannot do the same to filter "-Werror". Nobody advocating for "-Werror" >> replied to that fact yet. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer >> C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
