On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The setting of NO_WERROR belongs in [BTX]MAKE if anywhere. This is
> > already done for [BX]MAKE but not for TMAKE. However, I don't like
> > turning off warnings for any of these. Warnings for these stages may
> > be even more important and should be less likely than warnings for
> > building the final world, since it is very important for basic tools
> > to be correct and for their source to be careful about portabilty
> > issues.
> Well, unfortunately I don't think we can depend on older compilers
> having correct warnings. In PR 40382, it would seem the 4.5 -> HEAD
> upgrade path is broken because of fatal warnings. A good workaround
The problem in that PR seems to be just the current breakage of
> for that problem might be specifying NO_WERROR for the entire build,
> in which case -Werror becomes useless anyway. So we might just as
> well disable early fatal warnings and hope that developers can catch
> most of the bugs later on in the build.
It's true that the host compiler might emit spurious warnings. But I
think it's worth checking new ones (for new hosts and especially for
new sources) carefully. I won't argue this point strongly. We mostly
avoid seeing problems by not enabling many warnings (we don't set WARNS
for cc, and we set it to to for binutils).
> > This also has some style bugs :). Any setting of NO_WERROR turns it on,
> > so setting it to different spellings of boolean true is just confusing.
> > It is set correctly for for [BX]MAKE.
> Oh, that's a much nicer location. :) I think only BMAKE has
> NO_WERROR defined, not XMAKE.
XMAKE is based on BMAKE :).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message