> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +0000, Mark Murray wrote:
> > 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.
> I do not.

Right. I am about to commit a WARNS?= backout in anticipation of
your GCC3 work. While I believe we should be going the other way,
you are the (un)lucky fellow doing the hard work, so I'll defer.

In the meanwhile we shal continue to disagree on a more theoretical

OK? :-)

o       Mark Murray
\_      FreeBSD Services Limited
O.\_    Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn

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

Reply via email to