> 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 level. OK? :-) M -- 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message