On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:09:10PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>             Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> : > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> : > > If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
> : > > compiler will cause the tree to break, then there's no point having it
> : > > at all since that condition will always be true.
> : > 
> : > The difference is _impending_.
> : 
> I think that David is trying to say that "Look guys, I'm this >< close
> to importing gcc3.  It does warnings differently.  Cranking up the
> WARNS level now will get in the way of my work and will lead to
> unnecessary build breakage on some platforms that I don't compile for
> all the time.  Please go ahead and fix the warnings at the higher
> levels, but don't put WARNS=x into the Makefile* until I'm done
> importing things."
Nope, what David was _actually_ trying to say is to hold off with WARNS
fixes until GCC 3.1 becomes our compiler, because otherwise this is an
almost 100% duplicate of efforts, as GCC 3.1 is so WARNS-different from
GCC 2.95.3.  And of course David should add NO_WERROR (but probably to
Makefile.inc1) to avoid world breakage.

Ruslan Ermilov          Sysadmin and DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]           Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]          FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251        Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org  The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com   Enabling The Information Age

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to